Are all Homosexual acts as immoral

[TMC]

How so? Does the objective procreative aspect of the act cease to exist simply when one is subjectively, and unintentionally, unable to conceive?

Yes, of course it does. What is the procreative aspect of an act that cannot result in procreation? Also, as I pointed out, it does not have to be unintentional, the Church allows sex that is intentionaly non-procreative as long as it is done “in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood” and done by the approved method. Although not specifically addressed in the Cathechism, the Church also condones sex between permanently infertile married couples.

The problem here is the Church has never claimed the unitive aspect and the procreative aspect are separated simply because one is infertile.

How can the Church claim otherwise? Certainly God can give a child to an infertile person, but that would be miraculous. Are we justifying our sexual behaviours on the chance of a miracle? Do you have to be asking for such a miracle, or is it enough that God may impose it whether you want it or not? If we are relying on un-asked for miracles, well, that covers just about any situation so I don’t see how that creates any limit at all.

 

[Bennie_P]

Homosexuality is at the heart of all of this. If the Church moves one more step and admits what the majority of the Church Militant already believes, that the unitive value of sex validates the act seperate and apart from its reproductive value, homosexual sex becomes the same as heterosexual sex - OK in marriage but not outside marriage. Of course that is still a long way from approving homosexual unions, but it puts single gays on the same footing as single straight people, which is where I think they are already.

The reproductive value cannot be separted from the unitive value theologically, though people are trying to do it scientifically using a false logic in thier theology. Example Sarah and Elizabeth. though they were thought unable to bear children, sex was something we know that was still an important aspect as in the unitive value between them and their spouses, yet with God’s Grace they were blessed with children. No matter how hard people of the same sex try, those miracles cannot be duplicated, not even in mythical symbolism. Though “gay” activist and “gay” appoligist try to valadate the unitive value as a stand a alone value of same sex unions because of medical reasons that might prevent reproduction between some couples, that is an illogically premise based on rejection of divine intervention and the basic purpose of sex. Yes, God contiunes to bless couples when they are unable to reproduce with the unitive value of sex. But it is clear that same sex union is never been approved in salvation history for it never can be blessed with life nor, represent that blessing as a sacrament or symbol. It will always be anti-sacramental, a symbol representing death. I appreiciate that you stepped down teaching the CCC since you cannot support it. You are in my prayers.

 

[fix]

Yes, of course it does. What is the procreative aspect of an act that cannot result in procreation? Also, as I pointed out, it does not have to be unintentional, the Church allows sex that is intentionaly non-procreative as long as it is done “in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood” and done by the approved method. Although not specifically addressed in the Cathechism, the Church also condones sex between permanently infertile married couples.

Sexual intercourse is a physical fact and a moral fact. I was referring to unintentional sterility like menopause, There is a moral difference between unintentional sterility and intentionally suppressing the gift of fertility.

An unintenionally sterile act is still objectively procreative. A man and woman come together without hinderances.

How can the Church claim otherwise? Certainly God can give a child to an infertile person, but that would be miraculous. Are we justifying our sexual behaviours on the chance of a miracle? Do you have to be asking for such a miracle, or is it enough that God may impose it whether you want it or not? If we are relying on un-asked for miracles, well, that covers just about any situation so I don’t see how that creates any limit at all.

The procreative aspect of the act is not simply a matter of likely conception.

See here for more explanation:

This action must be of that kind from which generation can
follow, the male seed being left in the proper female organ, the
vagina. If this be done in the natural manner and there be no
attempt to impede or frustrate its consequences, then in itself
the action possesses an inherent direction towards the blessing
of fruitfulness, and is a life-giving, or more precisely a life-
offering action, whether actual generation takes place or not. On
the contrary, if the seed is not sown in the vagina but in a
pseudo-vagina or is sterilized in the vagina or is prevented from
entering the womb within the period of the action, then the
action is altered in its very nature and cannot be called a
generative kind of act…

 

[TMC]

The reproductive value cannot be separted from the unitive value theologically, though people are trying to do it scientifically using a false logic in thier theology. **Example Sarah and Elizabeth. though they were thought unable to bear children, sex was something we know that was still an important aspect as in the unitive value between them and their spouses, yet with God’s Grace they were blessed with children. No matter how hard people of the same sex try, those miracles cannot be duplicated, not even in mythical symbolism. **Though “gay” activist and “gay” appoligist try to valadate the unitive value as a stand a alone value of same sex unions because of medical reasons that might prevent reproduction between some couples, that is an illogically premise based on rejection of divine intervention and the basic purpose of sex. Yes, God contiunes to bless couples when they are unable to reproduce with the unitive value of sex. But it is clear that same sex union is never been approved in salvation history for it never can be blessed with life nor, represent that blessing as a sacrament or symbol. It will always be anti-sacramental, a symbol representing death. I appreiciate that you stepped down teaching the CCC since you cannot support it. You are in my prayers.

I am not sure that I am of the same mind regarding the limitations of miraculous power and divine intervention. The biological chance of, for example, a woman who has had a hysterectomy getting pregnant is exactly the same as the biological chance of pregancy resulting from a homosexual act.

All that aside, I’m glad you agree (I think) that sex provides a value to infertile married couples even if procreation is not physically possible.

 

[TMC]

An unintenionally sterile act is still objectively procreative. A man and woman come together without hinderances.

I have heard this statement and others like it many times. I have read many long explanations of it. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be offensive or beligerent, or insenstive to your point of view, but I have to say that no matter how many times it is said it is just not true. It can be made true by changing the meaning of “procreative” to “an act between two people which could have been procreative but for an impediment not of their making.” But it is not objectively true if they cannot reproduce together. It is not subjectively true if they know they cannot reproduce together. A woman without a uterus has a “hinderence” to procreation. A man that does not produce sperm does, too.

To be logically consistent, this doctrine should require those that know they cannot reproduce to abstain from sex. The same consistency should require that if they are not already married they should not marry. But the Church requires neither, because both are too harsh. So we end up twisting the meaning of plain words around until they meet the ends we already had in mind.

This action must be of that kind from which generation can follow, the male seed being left in the proper female organ, the vagina. If this be done in the natural manner and there be no attempt to impede or frustrate its consequences, then in itself the action possesses an inherent direction towards the blessing of fruitfulness, and is a life-giving, or more precisely a life-offering action, whether actual generation takes place or not. On the contrary, if the seed is not sown in the vagina but in a pseudo-vagina or is sterilized in the vagina or is prevented from entering the womb within the period of the action, then the action is altered in its very nature and cannot be called a generative kind of act…

This might make sense if we didn’t know that this is not how babies are born. Generation does not follow from the “male seed being left in the proper female organ,” anymore than it follows from the male seed being left anywhere else. It follows from the male seed penetrating the female egg in an environment conducive to generation and growth. If we know there is no egg, we know there can be no generation. Generation happens in the fallopian tube, or sometimes the uterus, not the vagina. No tubes, no uterus, no fertilization. And, of course, the Church does not forbid sex even when the man knows he is not producing any male seed to leave anywhere.

I want to be clear on one thing. To me this is central to the issue of the morality of homosexuality, as I said in my earlier post. But this would be an issue aside from homosexuality. There are other arguments against the morality of homosexuality. Frankly the procreative thing is the weakest one. This issue, the proper understanding of human sexuality, effects all Catholics, not just the small percentage who are homosexual.

 

[fix]

I have heard this statement and others like it many times. I have read many long explanations of it. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be offensive or beligerent, or insenstive to your point of view, but I have to say that no matter how many times it is said it is just not true. It can be made true by changing the meaning of “procreative” to “an act between two people which could have been procreative but for an impediment not of their making.” But it is not objectively true if they cannot reproduce together. It is not subjectively true if they know they cannot reproduce together. A woman without a uterus has a “hinderence” to procreation. A man that does not produce sperm does, too.

They have a hinderance to conception. The act is still life offering. The problem may be we look at this act simply as a physicalist would. The act is physical and moral.

To be logically consistent, this doctrine should require those that know they cannot reproduce to abstain from sex. The same consistency should require that if they are not already married they should not marry. But the Church requires neither, because both are too harsh. So we end up twisting the meaning of plain words around until they meet the ends we already had in mind.

Actually, that would be inconsistent with the teaching. The phrases “open to life” and “procreative aspect” of the act need to be understood in a theological sense, not simply as you wish them to be understood. If you want to challenge the teaching it would be best to first present what the Church really teaches and not substitute your understanding for Hers.

This might make sense if we didn’t know that this is not how babies are born. Generation does not follow from the “male seed being left in the proper female organ,” anymore than it follows from the male seed being left anywhere else. It follows from the male seed penetrating the female egg in an environment conducive to generation and growth. If we know there is no egg, we know there can be no generation. Generation happens in the fallopian tube, or sometimes the uterus, not the vagina. No tubes, no uterus, no fertilization. And, of course, the Church does not forbid sex even when the man knows he is not producing any male seed to leave anywhere.

The fact remains the man must deposit the seed in the woman for the actions to take place. The exact place within the reproductive tract is not the issue. Again, it is a physical reality and a moral reality.

I want to be clear on one thing. To me this is central to the issue of the morality of homosexuality, as I said in my earlier post. But this would be an issue aside from homosexuality. There are other arguments against the morality of homosexuality. Frankly the procreative thing is the weakest one. This issue, the proper understanding of human sexuality, effects all Catholics, not just the small percentage who are homosexual.

The central issue is God made male and female. To join together. Where did we get the idea He made men to join to men?

 

[brianwalden]

I am not sure that I am of the same mind regarding the limitations of miraculous power and divine intervention. The biological chance of, for example, a woman who has had a hysterectomy getting pregnant is exactly the same as the biological chance of pregancy resulting from a homosexual act.

Fertility within the theology of sexuality isn’t about individual people. It’s about the original Man and Woman who God created man to be and how our sexuality would have played out if the fall had never happened. Man and Woman by their very nature were created to be fertile with each other and only each other.

In a sense marriage helps us to participate in the roles of the Man and Woman who God originally created. This is why a woman who has had a hysterectomy can still have sex with her husband. In the marital act, no matter what our flaws our as individuals, we return to the unity of the first Man and Woman in the garden of Eden in a sacramental way.

 

[Bennie_P]

I am not sure that I am of the same mind regarding the limitations of miraculous power and divine intervention. The biological chance of, for example, a woman who has had a hysterectomy getting pregnant is exactly the same as the biological chance of pregancy resulting from a homosexual act.

All that aside, I’m glad you agree (I think) that sex provides a value to infertile married couples even if procreation is not physically possible.

But as many do you overlook this portion of my statement about homosexual unions never can be “blessed with life nor,** represent that blessing as a sacrament or symbol**. It will always be anti-sacramental, a symbol representing death.”
Marriage as a scarament and the symbolism of life it represents cannot ever be indictaed or replicated in a same-sex union.

 

[TMC]

Bennie, Brian, and Fix,

Thanks for discussing this in a civil manner (which is not always the case.) Clearly we are never going to come close to agreeing on this. I still think that the Church is trying to create a rational argument by twisting the meaning of words around. Obviously you don’t agree with me there. I agree that I have to start by discussing what the Church actually teaches, which I thought I did. But I don’t agree that its OK for the Church to base its teaching on a biological concept like procreativity, and then change the meaning of procreative. If the Church wants to say that sex must be unimpeded vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman because that is the Tradition of the Church, that’s intellectually honest. To say that Tradition is linked to or compelled by the doctrine of procreation, while ignoring the biology of procreation, is not intellectually honest.

So rather than waste more of all our time hashing over the same ground, I’ll let it go.

God Bless.

 

[catharina]

A Sacramental marriage between a man and a woman is a Sacramental marriage between a man and a woman. That won’t be changing because it can’t be changed - and the Church need say no more than that.

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie, Brian, and Fix,

Thanks for discussing this in a civil manner (which is not always the case.) Clearly we are never going to come close to agreeing on this. I still think that the Church is trying to create a rational argument by twisting the meaning of words around. Obviously you don’t agree with me there. I agree that I have to start by discussing what the Church actually teaches, which I thought I did. But I don’t agree that its OK for the Church to base its teaching on a biological concept like procreativity, and then change the meaning of procreative. If the Church wants to say that sex must be unimpeded vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman because that is the Tradition of the Church, that’s intellectually honest. To say that Tradition is linked to or compelled by the doctrine of procreation, while ignoring the biology of procreation, is not intellectually honest.

So rather than waste more of all our time hashing over the same ground, I’ll let it go.

God Bless.

I take it you never read Theology for the Body?

 

[brianwalden]

Bennie, Brian, and Fix,

Thanks for discussing this in a civil manner (which is not always the case.) Clearly we are never going to come close to agreeing on this. I still think that the Church is trying to create a rational argument by twisting the meaning of words around. Obviously you don’t agree with me there. I agree that I have to start by discussing what the Church actually teaches, which I thought I did. But I don’t agree that its OK for the Church to base its teaching on a biological concept like procreativity, and then change the meaning of procreative. If the Church wants to say that sex must be unimpeded vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman because that is the Tradition of the Church, that’s intellectually honest. To say that Tradition is linked to or compelled by the doctrine of procreation, while ignoring the biology of procreation, is not intellectually honest.

So rather than waste more of all our time hashing over the same ground, I’ll let it go.

God Bless.

I’ve also enjoyed the conversation,TMC. I think we’re just looking at the same thing from different perspectives. You see unity and procreation as mostly biological processes - physical unity between the husband and wife and the process of human reproduction. I see it in more of a theological way - the unity is between the husband, wife, and God and the procreation is sharing in God’s life-giving power. I guess both sides need to be balanced against each other.

 

[WynCatholic]

After even more reflection…

I just came out of a youth group meeting where I had a riff with the pastor of the parish He challenged me to show a source where the Church has declared homosexual acts to be immoral. I held that this is what the Church teaches. When I arrived home, I found that my catechism states very cleary that homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" [CCC 2357].

CCC 2390, “…The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin…”

He also told the us that we should follow what we truly believed to be right (although not what we think is easiest).

We all have the duty to form correct consciences.
CCC 1783, “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened…The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.”
CCC 2088. “The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.”

He claims as well that because they are in a loving relationship, certain homosexual acts are necessary sins.

CCC 1755, “The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.”

He argued that we would prefer them in these relationships than in promiscuous ones.

The pastor seems to have his vocation as spiritual shepherd confused with that of the medical shepherds, who already state as much for medical reasons. This is evidence of spiritual blindness.

This is his idea of the pastoral approach. What do teens know of the pastoral approach? And does that make it right or acceptable?

*We don’t want a sinner to be hurt by his sins but pain can lead to repentance.

1 Cor 5:5, “you are to deliver this man to Satan* for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.”*Deliver this man to Satan: once the sinner is expelled from the church, the sphere of Jesus’ lordship and victory will be in the region outside over which Satan is still master. For the destruction of his flesh: the purpose of the penalty is medicinal: through affliction, sin’s grip over him may be destroyed and the path to repentance and reunion laid open. With Paul’s instructions for an excommunication ceremony here, contrast his recommendations for the reconciliation of a sinner in 2 Cor 2:5-11.

Quotation from The New American Bible, along with the corresponding footnotes.Pastoral theology would have guidelines as to when such actions would be appropriate (I can’t help you with a source on this subject. Sorry .) Curbing the disastrous medical effects of sin may actually frustrate repentance from sin because the negative effects of sin often lead people to God.

​

*Preferring one deadly sin over another is no spiritual help. It isn’t any easier to repent of a committed lifestyle than a promiscuous lifestyle.

*A pastoral statement to teens would take the form of an exhortation to pray for purity of mind and actions, and for the conversion of sinners and to make reparation for sexual sins. It could promote in them a sense of solidarity and compassion by teaching the virtue of chastity and explaining the spiritual, physical, emotional and relational harm that homosexuals experience as a result of their sexual acts. It could also teach the young people how to disarm the bullying tactics they use to sway public opinion, and to correct the errors that they believe about God and the Catholic Church.
May God bless you.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.