D
DysonSphere
Guest
A “cultural catholic” is someone who enjoys the worship, ritual, and society the Catholic Church has to offer, without necessarily believing all of what the Catholic hierarchy or tradition or scriptures teach.
- Status
M
momor
Guest
I see it’s worse than I thought. I was hoping it was only Bingo night at the parish hall.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
Though, more seriously, it is true that most cultural Catholics go to mass on an irregular basis.
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
The butt and the mouth are not made for sex. This is the natural part of the natural law.
The natural law is man’s participation in God’s Eternal Law, revealed in the Ten Commandments. These were given for our final good, union with God in heaven and the beginning of this is Sanctifying Grace. This makes us free from the addiction to sin, needing more and more of what cannot bring true happiness, created goods. Our heart is made for God and this is the true happiness of man, God’s blessedness.
God’s Eternal Law leads us to our final end, our perfection, which is living united with Him. We must choose this by a humble search which He moves us toward by His Divine Will. We can choose to reject this. We incur the consequences now, blindness to what sin is and is doing to us, and later, in the possible rejection of God for eternity.
Natural law is based in and on God’s Creation, it is a transcendent metaphysical principle which rules creation as a higher principle contains the perfection of a lower principle. This perfection is analogical in creation seen in an example of an acorn containing the perfection which is the full grown oak tree.
A bowl full of acorns as decoration or the acorn glued to a child’s science project is not the perfection of what the acorn is, it’s being, the ontological aspect that we by our intelligence can study and know things such as this acorn and man himself.
The acorn containing the perfection of its being is manifested in its finality, the oak tree, This perfection is fruitful. It produces more oak trees. This is perfection in that it is following God’s design. Our intellect, even without God’s Grace but without the obstinacy of sin that clouds the judgment, can see things are made following a design and are to be used according to that design.
This is the true natural law free from bias leading from a preconceived notion that gay sex is good and that gay love is the same as a love that has the design and possibility of fruitfulness. Christian’s preconceived notion is that God is Good and thus His design is good. This can be demonstrated in those and to those not blinded in sin. The choice to study this in a more detailed manner in a venue with less opinion as to what constitutes natural law is up to you.
W
WatchingMedia
Guest
Then you are a Catholic in mortal sin. You can not receive Holy Communion without committing a Sacrilege.
If your priest knew about your beliefs he could not give you Communion.
Please don’t take anyone’s word for this. Read your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” asap. Your eternal life may depend on it, since none of us know how much time we have left.
There is no such thing as an open understanding of “Catholic”.
# 2089
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "**Heresy **is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; **apostasy **is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; **schism **is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
W
WatchingMedia
Guest
You have posted many times. You have recieved answers from many. You do not have a Religion, or a sense of the natural law. You refuse to pay attention to what people post.
And are merely trying to justify your daughter’s actions as you have stated previously.
Don’t bother. You will not get justification for her gay actions here.
If you really want info, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition from cover to cover. You can get a copy on Amazon.com.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I don’t know if Laurie needs justification from you. I support her daughter’s life decision, and see nothing wrong with it.
The problem with most of the answers provided is that they are narrow and utterly unconvincing to anyone but very conservative Catholics. The good answers provided still do not have sufficient weight to justify changing views. They justify only further consideration.
Laurie, I apologize for misrepresenting your sexual orientation; I had misread previous posts and had confused you with your daughter. I think, for what it’s worth, that your daughter can find much love, fulfillment, happiness, betterment in her lesbian relationships, if they are serious, respectful, and virtuous.
There is no good reason to think that lesbian relationships cannot be these things.
The problem with most of the answers provided is that they are narrow and utterly unconvincing to anyone but very conservative Catholics. The good answers provided still do not have sufficient weight to justify changing views. They justify only further consideration.
Laurie, I apologize for misrepresenting your sexual orientation; I had misread previous posts and had confused you with your daughter. I think, for what it’s worth, that your daughter can find much love, fulfillment, happiness, betterment in her lesbian relationships, if they are serious, respectful, and virtuous.
There is no good reason to think that lesbian relationships cannot be these things.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
While I respect your opinion, and admire your concern for me, a person you don’t even know, I will continue along my current uncertain path. I receive communion, and find nothing wrong with it; I have no guilt in this action. My priest is likely unaware of my views; I see no reason to inform him.
I suppose if it really came down to a priest refusing to give communion to me, I’d go to another parish. If nowhere nearby would offer me communion, I think I’d attend a church of another denomination.
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Hi Bunbury,
The butt and the mouth are not made for sex. This is the natural part of the natural law.
Nor is the nose made for spectacles or feet to kick football. So what?
The natural law is man’s participation in God’s Eternal Law, revealed in the Ten Commandments. These were given for our final good, union with God in heaven and the beginning of this is Sanctifying Grace. This makes us free from the addiction to sin, needing more and more of what cannot bring true happiness, created goods. Our heart is made for God and this is the true happiness of man, God’s blessedness.
The Ten Commandments say nothing about gay sex. My claim is that a loving God, if one exists, would not deny his nature, by opposing gay people expressing their love physically.
God’s Eternal Law leads us to our final end, our perfection, which is living united with Him. We must choose this by a humble search which He moves us toward by His Divine Will. We can choose to reject this. We incur the consequences now, blindness to what sin is and is doing to us, and later, in the possible rejection of God for eternity.
But is it his will that gay people should not have sex – that is what I challenge?
Natural law is based in and on God’s Creation, it is a transcendent metaphysical principle which rules creation as a higher principle contains the perfection of a lower principle. This perfection is analogical in creation seen in an example of an acorn containing the perfection which is the full grown oak tree.
A bowl full of acorns as decoration or the acorn glued to a child’s science project is not the perfection of what the acorn is, it’s being, the ontological aspect that we by our intelligence can study and know things such as this acorn and man himself.
The acorn containing the perfection of its being is manifested in its finality, the oak tree, This perfection is fruitful. It produces more oak trees. This is perfection in that it is following God’s design. Our intellect, even without God’s Grace but without the obstinacy of sin that clouds the judgment, can see things are made following a design and are to be used according to that design.
This elaborate argument seems to show we ought to reproduce if we can. It is our end - just as ancorn’s end is to grow into an oak. But celibacy is allowed. An exception! Why not do the same for gay people. If God accept celibates I’m sure he accepts gays.
Also your account of Natural Law is over-physical. The important part of the human is his mind [or soul if you like] not his body. It’s fulfillment is found in love for fellow humans, for God and, in this context, for a special life-long partner. We grow and God would want us to grow in the light of such a love [read De Volente earlier on this] - the sex of the partner should be of no consequence. Your great church will be even greater when it realises this.
Best wishes
Laurie
The butt and the mouth are not made for sex. This is the natural part of the natural law.
Nor is the nose made for spectacles or feet to kick football. So what?
The natural law is man’s participation in God’s Eternal Law, revealed in the Ten Commandments. These were given for our final good, union with God in heaven and the beginning of this is Sanctifying Grace. This makes us free from the addiction to sin, needing more and more of what cannot bring true happiness, created goods. Our heart is made for God and this is the true happiness of man, God’s blessedness.
The Ten Commandments say nothing about gay sex. My claim is that a loving God, if one exists, would not deny his nature, by opposing gay people expressing their love physically.
God’s Eternal Law leads us to our final end, our perfection, which is living united with Him. We must choose this by a humble search which He moves us toward by His Divine Will. We can choose to reject this. We incur the consequences now, blindness to what sin is and is doing to us, and later, in the possible rejection of God for eternity.
But is it his will that gay people should not have sex – that is what I challenge?
Natural law is based in and on God’s Creation, it is a transcendent metaphysical principle which rules creation as a higher principle contains the perfection of a lower principle. This perfection is analogical in creation seen in an example of an acorn containing the perfection which is the full grown oak tree.
A bowl full of acorns as decoration or the acorn glued to a child’s science project is not the perfection of what the acorn is, it’s being, the ontological aspect that we by our intelligence can study and know things such as this acorn and man himself.
The acorn containing the perfection of its being is manifested in its finality, the oak tree, This perfection is fruitful. It produces more oak trees. This is perfection in that it is following God’s design. Our intellect, even without God’s Grace but without the obstinacy of sin that clouds the judgment, can see things are made following a design and are to be used according to that design.
This elaborate argument seems to show we ought to reproduce if we can. It is our end - just as ancorn’s end is to grow into an oak. But celibacy is allowed. An exception! Why not do the same for gay people. If God accept celibates I’m sure he accepts gays.
Also your account of Natural Law is over-physical. The important part of the human is his mind [or soul if you like] not his body. It’s fulfillment is found in love for fellow humans, for God and, in this context, for a special life-long partner. We grow and God would want us to grow in the light of such a love [read De Volente earlier on this] - the sex of the partner should be of no consequence. Your great church will be even greater when it realises this.
Best wishes
Laurie
M
momor
Guest
I question whether you are/were ever Catholic, even in name only. Are you posting here under that title to intentionally misrepresent Catholicism? Your lack of anything resembling Catholic faith and morals is breathtaking if you really are what you say you are.
W
WatchingMedia
Guest
This is a Catholic web site.
Is there one for heretics?
Is there one for heretics?
W
WatchingMedia
Guest
If you really are a Catholic, your path is certain, because you have been informed and intend to continue down the path of a heretic making Sacrilegous Communions - according to your words. Without checking it out.
I did not give you my opinion, which is not important. I have you the Church’s firm postion.
If I knew you, I would report you to your Bishop for Sacrilege.
W
WatchingMedia
Guest
, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition from cover to cover. You can get a copy on Amazon.com.
Laurie, this post stands. If you truly want more info read the CCC.
DysonSphere you never were a Catholic. No Catholic would ever make the statements you have made to encourage mortal sin.
Please change your posted Religion to the truth. Whatever that is.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I will continue with my current label (I really am a Catholic), unless of course the forum administration here desires it be changed.
J
jafthompson
Guest
No one should approach the Lord in the Eucharistic sacrifice in a state of mortal sin, which we are taught to know by the Bible and Magisterium.
V
VetA
Guest
excuse my crassness but from the natural law, maby the fact that women have a vagina and men have a penis, or that a man and a woman can make a baby but not two men or two women is a high degree of proof for me… sorry i came late but this is the first time i saw this thread
D
djeter
Guest
I think you are confirmed in your sinfulness Laurie and the idea that anyone is going to “persuade” you is rather a reach. This constant repetition of “Why is it wrong?” after so much has been written and provided to you on the contrary, strikes me as bizarre. Do you accept the Ten Commandments? Would a violation of one of them satisfy you that homosexuality is “wrong?”
In His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever does and teaches them [even the “least” commandments], he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).
Throughout the entire message, Jesus was explaining and expounding and magnifying the Ten Commandments. He was showing that this spiritual law was a living law – like the law of gravity or inertia. When you break it, it breaks you! We have seen, therefore, that when men or nations break the first commandment – “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3) – they bring an inevitable penalty of suffering and wretchedness upon themselves and their posterity.
Men cut themselves off from the source of their being, from the purpose of life, from the laws that would give them happiness, peace and joy. Simply put, Sin cuts Men off from the true God and leaves them empty, frustrated and miserable. Any statistical picture of gays confirms that observation.
And as Bogey put it in Casablanca: “I’m saying it because it’s true. Inside of us, we both know you belong with Victor. … If that plane leaves the ground and you’re not with him, you’ll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.” Sin has that same nature of un-truth and “maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but soon…” is an operable law of nature. I would wager you’re here because you already know that in some way. We’re not telling you anything new, I’m sure.
There is a way to deal with same-sex attraction when it crosses the line into disorder and many Catholics bear such a cross in their lives yet live chastely and happily in friendship with God. What you do is wrong, what they do is right.
The New Law of Christ, which is principally the power and life of the Holy Spirit, gives us an ability that does not come from nature itself to fulfill the natural law. The natural law shows what we should do (as does divinely revealed law, such as the Ten Commandments). Sin weakens the will, however, so that we choose to do what we know is wrong.
You wrote: “I do not have such a feeling! Impasse.” No. There is no impasse. Others say they don’t believe in God. They have no such “feeling.” Impasse? No. Never.
The New Law of grace, the Holy Spirit in our hearts, overcomes the power of sin and enables us to do what we should. We are no longer mastered by sin. Psychologists tell us that a true friend is someone who has seen us at our worst and still loves us. If you have encountered me only on my best days, when all is going well and I am in top form, and you like me, I have no guarantee that you are my friend. But when you have dealt with me when I am most obnoxious, most self-absorbed, most afraid and unpleasant, and you still love me, then I am sure that you are my friend.
The old Gospel song says, “What a friend we have in Jesus!” This is not pious sentimentalism; it is the heart of the matter. What the first Christians saw in the dying and rising of Jesus is that we killed God, and God returned in forgiving love. We murdered the Lord of Life, and he answered us, not with hatred, but with compassion. He saw us at our very worst, and loved us anyway. Thus they saw confirmed in flesh and blood what Jesus had said the night before he died: “I do not call you servants any longer, but I have called you friends” (John 14:15). They realized, in the drama of the Paschal Mystery, that we have not only been shown a new way; we have been drawn into a new life, a life of friendship with God.
The author of Psalm 139 wrote:
Where can I go from your spirit?
Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
If I take the wings of the morning
and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me fast.
(Psalm 139:7-10)
These words take on a new resonance and reveal their deepest significance in light of Easter, No matter where we run from God — no matter how weary to flee — God tracks us down and will not let us go. Paul Tillich read Psalm 139 as the sinner’s lament, the cry of the soul who just wants to escape from the press of God:
“How can I get away from you?” The answer fully disclosed in the dying and rising of Jesus is: “You can’t; so stop trying.” Because the Son of God has gone to the very limits of godforsakenness, we find that even as we run away from the Father, we are running directly into the arms of the Son. Unlike most contemporary New Age spiritualities which emphasize the human quest for God, the biblical spirituality is the story of God’s relentless search for us. And this narrative comes to its fulfillment in the recounting of God’s journey into the darkest and coldest corner of human sinfulness — even into death itself — in order to find us. This divine finding, this friendship with God despite all of our efforts to avoid it, is salvation.
Warmest regards,
dj
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
DJ,
The trouble is that you have simply produced a string of imposing assertions.
I produced some reasoning. No doubt not very good, no doubt easily refuted, but simply to assert that I am mistaken - even if your rhetoric is good - will not do the job.
Regards
Laurie
And I am perfectly willing to change my mind if some reasoning can be produced to show me that if something is unnatural it is also wrong because I just do not see it. Let me briefly explain.
Here are three ‘unnatural’ acts - using the term in its everyday sense.
**1] Living in a house - our stone age ancestors did not.
2] Being faithful - no male mammal is faithful if presented with the opportunity to be otherwise.
3] Having sex with a same-sex partner.
Now the first two 'unnatural 'acts we both do not regard as wrong.
The difference is that I do not regard the third as wrong either and require some reasoning to show me this. To say it is against Natural Law morality is just saying that it is ‘unnatural’ in the third way above, it is not providing me with a reason why it is wrong. To supply more and more graphic detail as to how it is unnatural as my friend Portrait did, does not do the trick because I am not denying the act is unnatural. In the end he just ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ it was wrong. I do not have his intuition and so need a reason.
It was an impasse. If you are able to help me over that impasse fine - but your assertions cannot help - reasons needed!**
The trouble is that you have simply produced a string of imposing assertions.
I produced some reasoning. No doubt not very good, no doubt easily refuted, but simply to assert that I am mistaken - even if your rhetoric is good - will not do the job.
Regards
Laurie
And I am perfectly willing to change my mind if some reasoning can be produced to show me that if something is unnatural it is also wrong because I just do not see it. Let me briefly explain.
Here are three ‘unnatural’ acts - using the term in its everyday sense.
**1] Living in a house - our stone age ancestors did not.
2] Being faithful - no male mammal is faithful if presented with the opportunity to be otherwise.
3] Having sex with a same-sex partner.
Now the first two 'unnatural 'acts we both do not regard as wrong.
The difference is that I do not regard the third as wrong either and require some reasoning to show me this. To say it is against Natural Law morality is just saying that it is ‘unnatural’ in the third way above, it is not providing me with a reason why it is wrong. To supply more and more graphic detail as to how it is unnatural as my friend Portrait did, does not do the trick because I am not denying the act is unnatural. In the end he just ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ it was wrong. I do not have his intuition and so need a reason.
It was an impasse. If you are able to help me over that impasse fine - but your assertions cannot help - reasons needed!**
M
momor
Guest
Your moral compass is broken??
J
John21652
Guest
Laurie, you are still not getting it.
Take your three examples of unnatural acts -
- Our ancestors did in fact live in ‘houses’. Houses are shelters and a shelter can take many forms, from a cave to a humpy built from leaves and twigs. Making, buying, building, moving into a shelter is not unnatural.
- Wrong. Many male mammals are manogamous. Wolves and beavers, for example, come to mind. Your second point is also fallacious because you are widening out the debate from humans to all mammals, when the topic is human homosexuality.
You have this third example under your heading of unnatural acts. That’s good, because it puts the question immediately under the scope of Natural Law arguments. If we were to consider the ‘wrongness’ of homosexuality under Utililitarian morality, we would need a different heading. However, for Natural Law reasoning, your heading of ‘unnaturalness’ gives us a perfect fit for defining this 'wrongness.
Under Natural Law and Natural Law Morality, the unnaturalness of an act is measured in human terms, which is why your second point is invalid. According to Natural Law, the unnaturaleness of same sex sexual activity is a disorder. It is against the natural way of things in that it causes harm to what are supposed to be the defining principles of human sexuality, namely procreation and the physical makeup of male and female human beings. Same sex activity is a wrong use of the physical attributes of the species and subverts their proper function, which is procreation. Our design contradicts homosexuality. Now you may not like the fact that this is how Natural Law morality arrives at right and wrong, but it is the case. Reject the ‘wrongness’ so described and you are simply rejecting Natural Law. Now the question is Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law. The obvious answer is that Natural Law tells us that Homosexuality is wrong and it does so because of the very nature of Natural Law reasoning. That reasoning leaves out the question of ‘other mammals’ and concentrates soley on human behaviour and human reasoning. The process tells us Homosexuality is wrong. To reject that ‘wrongness’ is to reject Natural Law.
Lets look at some definitions of ‘wrongness’. There are quite a few, but most revolve around the appropriateness of a behaviour, or whether or not that behaviour is in accord with accepted usage, or goes against social convention. Natural Law morality looks at these ways in which to judge the wrongness of an act, or behaviour. The process involoves use of observation of the natural order of things, deductions about the effects of a behaviour on both the individual and the broader society, all in human terms. It is an holistic view of the world and our place in it. If the behaviours lead to ‘harm’ as defined by Natural Law, then the ‘wrongness’ of an act is affirmed. In Natural Law morality, ‘wrongness’ comes from the disordered use of human sexuality.
- Status