Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[larkin31]

When i say “linked,” I mean that the two are absolutely inseparable. The primary end of sexual relations is procreation. A secondary end is the union of man and wife. The pleasure that accompanies sex is not an end at all, but is a “side effect.” Sex without being open to life makes the pleasure the primary end, and as such is disordered.

That’s not in the story of Adam or Noah or Onan.

 

[StTommyMore]

That’s not in the story of Adam or Noah or Onan.

To be sure, the ban against contraception is difficult to make based on Scripture alone. Catholics also take into consideration the historic teaching of the Church. Did you read the article I provided?

 

[larkin31]

To be sure, the ban against contraception is difficult to make based on Scripture alone. Catholics also take into consideration the historic teaching of the Church. Did you read the article I provided?

Yes, I said that I did.

No one denies that the Church is opposed to contraception. But all defenses end up constructed–as was the article you linked–on the passages I claim are better interpreted other than how the RCC has interpreted them. That the RCC has LONG interpreted these things in this narrow and extreme way does not erase the fact that the interpretation is narrow and extreme. And it is on these grounds that I claim that the interpretation is in error.

I have great respect for the RCC in many ways (and am married to a Catholic). But I have little respect for its repression of sexual and erotic pleasure and its insistence on procreative sex alone. I see no Biblical basis for it, and consider the pattern a twisted offshoot of the early purity laws of the Jews and a strain of asceticism practiced by judeo groups and by Paul, who we know, ended up having much influence. The rest is history.

 

[StTommyMore]

Yes, I said that I did.

No one denies that the Church is opposed to contraception. But all defenses end up constructed–as was the article you linked–on the passages I claim are better interpreted other than how the RCC has interpreted them. That the RCC has LONG interpreted these things in this narrow and extreme way does not erase the fact that the interpretation is narrow and extreme. And it is on these grounds that I claim that the interpretation is in error.

I have great respect for the RCC in many ways (and am married to a Catholic). But I have little respect for its repression of sexual and erotic pleasure and its insistence on procreative sex alone. I see no Biblical basis for it, and consider the pattern a twisted offshoot of the early purity laws of the Jews and a strain of asceticism practiced by judeo groups and by Paul, who we know, ended up having much influence. The rest is history.

Actually Christianity has been long opposed to artificial contraception. Until 1930, no Christian community allowed for it under any circumstances. Did the moral law suddenly change in 1930? If it did then what basis is there for morality at all?

 

[CradleCath]

Here is a paper I wrote on the subject for a moral theology class.

That is an EXCELLENT paper. Good job.

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;7243198:

Onan wasn’t slain simply for wasting his seed; it was for disobeying God and a hereditary law. The spilling of seed was ancillary.

This makes no sense. The penalty for not obeying the hereditary laws in the Jewish faith was public humiliation. And if God had slain everyone who disobeyed Him, the human race would not have progressed past Adam & Eve.

BTW. The post I’m replying to, though it carries my name, is not mine.
The words:
Onan wasn’t slain simply for wasting his seed; it was for disobeying God and a hereditary law. The spilling of seed was ancillary.are those of Larking31.

 

[StAnastasia]

But I have little respect for its repression of sexual and erotic pleasure and its insistence on procreative sex alone. I see no Biblical basis for it, and consider the pattern a twisted offshoot of the early purity laws of the Jews and a strain of asceticism practiced by judeo groups and by Paul, who we know, ended up having much influence. The rest is history.

There is no coherent theological basis for it. And I wonder what will happen as the planet fills up with people. Eventually there will be no more room for yet more people, so either sex will come to an end, or the Catholic prohibition on recreational sex between spouses will be relaxed.

 

[rlg94086]

There is no coherent theological basis for it. And I wonder what will happen as the planet fills up with people. Eventually there will be no more room for yet more people, so either sex will come to an end, or the Catholic prohibition on recreational sex between spouses will be relaxed.

Are you claiming that Theology of the Body is incoherent? Or, is it just incoherent to you?

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you claiming that Theology of the Body is incoherent? Or, is it just incoherent to you?

I said nothing about the Theology of the Body.

 

[rlg94086]

To be sure,** the ban against contraception** is difficult to make based on Scripture alone. Catholics also take into consideration the historic teaching of the Church. Did you read the article I provided?

But I have little respect for its repression of sexual and erotic pleasure and its insistence on procreative sex alone. I see no Biblical basis for it, and consider the pattern a twisted offshoot of the early purity laws of the Jews and a strain of asceticism practiced by judeo groups and by Paul, who we know, ended up having much influence. The rest is history.

There is no coherent theological basis for it. And I wonder what will happen as the planet fills up with people. Eventually there will be no more room for yet more people, so either sex will come to an end, or the Catholic prohibition on recreational sex between spouses will be relaxed.

I said nothing about the Theology of the Body.

So, you don’t think Theology of the Body deals with questions of birth control and the procreative aspect of sexual relations? Have you read Theology of the Body?

EDIT ADD…Oh, and it of course deals with the sinfulness of homosexual acts, which explains why we should not support homosexual unions (just to keep on-topic) .

 

[Layman]

I’m surprised the proposition* “Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions”* has gone to 45+ pages.

I doubt that they do.
If they do, they’re wrong. See: the Bible and 2000+ years of tradition.

Next!

 

[larkin31]

This makes no sense. The penalty for not obeying the hereditary laws in the Jewish faith was public humiliation. And if God had slain everyone who disobeyed Him, the human race would not have progressed past Adam & Eve.

Come on, Cath.

God did not slay every couple that practiced coitus interruptus, either. In fact, God did not slay ANY couples who practiced this. Are you trying to claim that God never slew people for disobeying him?

Furthermore, God NEVER publicly humiliated anyone for violating Levitical law. God was free to punish persons however God wanted whenever God wanted. Right? Was there human precedent for global Floods? Was there human precedent for plagues? Was there human precedent for destructions of cities because of immoral sexuality?

 

[larkin31]

So, you don’t think Theology of the Body deals with questions of birth control and the procreative aspect of sexual relations? Have you read Theology of the Body?

What does it say in its key points relevant to this discussion? Anything that has not been discussed here? Quote some of it.

 

[StAnastasia]

What does it say in its key points relevant to this discussion? Anything that has not been discussed here? Quote some of it.

larking31, what will be interesting is how a theology opposed to so-called “artificial” contraception will look when the world has 100 billion members of the species Homo sapiens rather than the seven billion we have today. “Go forth and multiply” made sense in the relatively empty world of 1500 BCE. I would say humans have largely fulfilled that “command” by now.

 

[StAnastasia]

God did not slay every couple that practiced coitus interruptus, either. In fact, God did not slay ANY couples who practiced this. Are you trying to claim that God never slew people for disobeying him?

Larkin31, God slew 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Are you sure none of them had practice coitus interruptus the night before?

 

[rlg94086]

What does it say in its key points relevant to this discussion? Anything that has not been discussed here? Quote some of it.

It is a very “coherent” theological work by John Paul II that explains the purpose and design of human sexuality, so I am just curious how StAnastasia, theologian, does not believe their is any coherent theological basis for Church teaching regarding birth control, the procreative nature of sexuality, etc.

I highly recommend you read it.

 

[estesbob]

larking31, what will be interesting is how a theology opposed to so-called “artificial” contraception will look when the world has 100 billion members of the species Homo sapiens rather than the seven billion we have today. “Go forth and multiply” made sense in the relatively empty world of 1500 BCE. I would say humans have largely fulfilled that “command” by now.

I am curious how you reconcile your population control views with the teachings of our Church?

 

[rlg94086]

I am curious how you reconcile your population control views with the teachings of our Church?

Don’t expect a “coherent” answer on that.

 

[StTommyMore]

larking31, what will be interesting is how a theology opposed to so-called “artificial” contraception will look when the world has 100 billion members of the species Homo sapiens rather than the seven billion we have today. “Go forth and multiply” made sense in the relatively empty world of 1500 BCE. I would say humans have largely fulfilled that “command” by now.

You will never see this. A cursory examination of population growth indicates that we will be peaking at much below this. I am sorry Henny Penny, the sky is not falling.

 

[StAnastasia]

You will never see this. A cursory examination of population growth indicates that we will be peaking at much below this.

So you agree that we will eventually reach zero population growth? Good. The question is at what level it will stabilize, and when. At current projections we will reach nine billion by 2050, which is not likely to be sustained when the era of cheap. plentiful oil ends in the next generation. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as we move toward a stable zero-growth human population.