Changed my views on Homosexuality

[joeybaggz]

How does the Church know that God didn’t create sexual activity for pure pleasure in addition to the other reasons the Church gives. Without itemizing body parts involved, etc.,… They are all designed so they can be used in exclusive ways, without incorporation of all of the ways. How wonderful, to my way of thinking as an agnostic, that the body was created in such versatile fashion. It meets the needs of everyone, regardless of where they are in life. The Church claims this view of human sexuality isn’t in accordance with Natural Law. How can it not be?

I read this post earlier and decided not to reply. As this thread has progressed, I would like to add one thought. The Church considers sexual expression, as a great gift from the Creator, G-d for some of you, something that He as shared with humanity. From the very first book of Genesis, the Church understands that man is created sacred in God’s eyes; in His image and likeness. Sacred. The act that creates a new human life is sacred, and any activity that abuses that great gift from God, is an offense. Some obviously greater than other.
I don’t think one can eliminate divine law and cite only natural low in the Church’s understanding of human sexual expression.

 

[joeybaggz]

You know, I always say agnostics get the worst of it, because most of us are good people who work hard at seeking the truths in life. We aren’t handed a recipe for how to search, or a bunch of church documents we can study. We can look at the things that bring others to what they believe is the truth, but if we don’t believe, then we don’t believe. We get a bum rap sometimes… I have been told I am lazy because I don’t subscribe to a particular set of religious beliefs. Can you imagine that, and how it makes me feel towards the people who say that? Ultimately, I remind myself we are all human and no one is perfect, especially me. Then I am able to move on and keep seeking. I would just encourage all of us to step into each other’s shoes sometimes. I am sure being Catholic isn’t easy at times, either. We all struggle.

Well said!

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Apparently the 1963 Pontifical Commission on Birth Control was was wrong.

From Catholic Answers:

At one time the Pontifical Biblical Commission was essentially a low-ranking Congregation.

Sure, just like you’d be very nonplussed if a Pontifical Commission was called and you were somehow involved.



But that’s rather my point here. “The Catholic Church can’t be wrong on faith and morals” requires the identification of what, exactly, can clearly speak on behalf of the entire Catholic Church and when they’re specifically doing that.

And if that’s not nebulous enough…

We have to identify what exactly is an object of faith and an object of morals. Priestly marriage, almost preemptively, is widely decried as neither one of those things as it can potentially change “as a matter if discipline”.

If one were more skeptical, they’d almost argue that defensive polemic appeals to vagueness are deliberately written in so the Church can, indeed change over time (if only as a matter of discipline, rather than dogma).

So to say the Church as a whole was wrong on faith and morals because of a document from a Pontifical Commission in 1963…

So then the HV that refuted it was infallible, right?

Oh wait…

I hope you see that point. It’s (seemingly deliberately) “I don’t know for sure”.

 

[theCardinalbird]

So then the HV that refuted it was infallible, right?

Are you talking about Humanae vitae?

Also I would like to point out. The reason why I made that response about the Commission is to explain to you that it was not an infallible commission that creates doctrines and dogmas.

Also inline with the argument on this thread, I wanted to make a case, to refute if you were thinking that, just because this commission was wrong, therefore the infallibility of the Church is non-existent on faith and morals. That is obviously not so.

Based on sacred scripture and tradition, the Church has always agreed that under no circumstances can Homosexual acts be approved. That is what I wanted to make a case on.

Apologies if I didn’t make that clear

Also. A document from that Pontifical Commission is different from a encyclical

 

[theCardinalbird]

“The Catholic Church can’t be wrong on faith and morals” requires the identification of what, exactly, can clearly speak on behalf of the entire Catholic Church and when they’re specifically doing that.

Are you talking about when the Pope speaks infallibily?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Thank you a @2towers for your thoughtful response. I understand your points. I guess I see things differently. Any behavior that brings human comfort can become addicting. All of the examples you cited (eating, drinking, etc.) are included. Sex is no different. We have to be careful with all of these activities.

Thanks again for the time you took to respond to my post.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Are you as willing to apply this standard to heterosexual couples?

Ellipses:

Yes. Heteroesexuals who get proper religious counseling before marriage have a divorce of less than 1%.

 

[vsedriver]

I think virtually all of the Christians that disagree with Catholic sexual restrictions still have bibles that include Pauline epistles…

but you didn’t answer as to whether St. Paul, who unlike Jesus was not God, but still a single, celibate man had authority to teach on sexual matters. It was you who said that you couldn’t accept the teaching of single, celibate men. Do you reject Paul’s teachings on sex and marriage?

 

[vsedriver]

Well, I think we agree—if sexual pleasure is relatively unimportant, or in your words “very secondary”, than Catholic teaching on sexuality is very easy to follow.

there’s a huge difference between calling something ‘relatively unimportant’ and something very secondary. Catholic teaching does not call sexual pleasure ‘unimportant.’ In fact, sexual pleasure is so important that it is reserved for the marital state between a man and a woman. But that doesn’t mean it has the primacy of importance in a marriage.

 

[vsedriver]

Right. What’s being argued is essentially the moral equivalent of the Gettier Problem.

no, because this isn’t an argument from philosophy but one from theology.

 

[vsedriver]

Apparently the 1963 Pontifical Commission on Birth Control was was wrong.

A Pontifical Commission is not the magisterium and the Pope. The Commission got it wrong but the Church got it right as we can see with Humanae Vitae

Looking at the ancient ecumenical councils, it would seem that the answer is at least a partial “yes”.

But not exactly. Coming to a common conclusion is not the same as a voting booth. Or to put it another way, a church council in union with the Pope is not the same as the general laity voting on what is and isn’t to beheld as dogma by the whole Church.

This isn’t proof or even a good argument for anything. This is just you doubling-down on faith. Which is fine, I guess, but it doesn’t address the issue.

Only if your faith is based on Scripture and the Church founded by Jesus Christ. If you disagree with a dogmatic teaching of the church you can’t claim that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit. At best, you can only claim that you can’t understand the teaching.

That’s a great question that doesn’t have a consistent answer across Christian history since there have been heretical popes who have sat in the Petrine seat.

name one heretical pope that taught a heretical teaching as dogma for all the faithful to believe. Perhaps you are confusing heretical with a lack of impeccability?

And when cornered, the Catholic definition of what classifies an object of “faith” or an object of “morals” can maybe become a little diffuse as a polemic survival mechanism.

you lost me here. Are you saying that Catholics don’t know what is dogma? Or what is moral?

Sure. Some would argue that Church isn’t the Catholic one, though. Respectfully. And some would argue it is, but it is as fallible as the men that administer it.

well anyone is welcome to try and prove that their church is the one true church. But it is a little hard to ignore scripture, tradition, and history to do it.

So the Church is not preserved from teaching error on matters of faith and morals? If that’s true then there is no such thing as Christianity and we have all been wasting our time. Right?

 

[vsedriver]

They fail when they break or are broken. That is why I said “proper”.

even used properly they don’t prevent all STDs

 

[theCardinalbird]

even used properly they don’t prevent all STDs

Interesting. But even without STDs there are still many more problems if one commits homosexual acts. I think there are some psychological ones?

 

[vsedriver]

I am sure being Catholic isn’t easy at times, either. We all struggle.

I wish you a good journey in your search for Truth. I hope you find complete fulfillment. As for me, once I gave my life up to God, being Catholic was the easiest thing in the world to do. Life is still hard but I see with ‘new eyes’. The joy is indescribable.

 

[vsedriver]

We have to identify what exactly is an object of faith and an object of morals. Priestly marriage, almost preemptively, is widely decried as neither one of those things as it can potentially change “as a matter if discipline”

again you misunderstand Catholic teaching. Once a man is ordained a priest he can’t get married. This has not changed since the time of the Apostles. It is a church discipline that a married man in most circumstances can’t be ordained. Because this is only a church discipline there are exceptions to this rule.

If one were more skeptical, they’d almost argue that defensive polemic appeals to vagueness are deliberately written in so the Church can, indeed change over time (if only as a matter of discipline, rather than dogma)

so there is a conspiracy among the leaders of the church to give themselves future ‘outs’? I can just see all the bishops saying ‘let’s leave this a little vague, some of our successors might want to fudge it a little’.

Yes, Humanae Vitae is not infallible because documents are not infallible, it is however authoritative. What is infallible is the teaching contained in the document which only reaffirmed what the church had taught from the beginning. So the Pope didn’t add or change anything that had already been believed by all of the church. The Pope has the authority to teach infallibly in the matters of faith and morals. A commission does not. They can only advise. They advised the Pope to go against the church held belief and the Pope said you can’t do that.

 

[vsedriver]

If we keep Catholic Sexuality about making babies, I think that keeps everybody happy.

there is no such thing as Catholic sexuality, there is only human sexuality. But yes, human sexuality is about making babies.

 

[vsedriver]

But you might get a debate by more than a few that human sexuality is about more than making babies.

of course and it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve debated on that topic. You’ll notice I did not say it was ONLY about making babies. But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[Vonsalza]

You missed the point.

These folks obviously think there is a disparity between Catholic and Pauline thought on the matter with the latter being substantially less arbitrarily restrictive.

 

[Vonsalza]

Makes no difference.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You know, I always say agnostics get the worst of it, because most of us are good people who work hard at seeking the truths in life.

The problem is they generally are not. They’ll take a magnifying glass to traditional marriage or religion, but will let loose with the wind on climate change. If that’s their model, they’ll be defeated in short order.

I have been told I am lazy because I don’t subscribe to a particular set of religious beliefs.

The skeptics I know are a big reason why religious freedom exists and are light years ahead of religious ministers in cultural regards.