C
caoindealbhan
Guest
Are you calling God’s Creation disordered?
- Status
M
michelleds
Guest
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
C
caoindealbhan
Guest
“Its psychological genesis remains unexplained.”
Hmm… perhaps a judgment on God’s creation shouldn’t be made if the Church doesn’t have all the answers on the subject.
I go on to refute the fact that sex is only used to procreate. If that was the fact, we would still have the abominably large families of 10 to 12 children where children are deprived quality time so needed with their parents because someone, one day said, that sex must be open always to conception. Irresponsibility to the extreme!
You never have more children than you can afford. it is cruel and abusive.
Hmm… perhaps a judgment on God’s creation shouldn’t be made if the Church doesn’t have all the answers on the subject.
I go on to refute the fact that sex is only used to procreate. If that was the fact, we would still have the abominably large families of 10 to 12 children where children are deprived quality time so needed with their parents because someone, one day said, that sex must be open always to conception. Irresponsibility to the extreme!
You never have more children than you can afford. it is cruel and abusive.
J
John21652
Guest
michelleds quoted directly from the Catholic Catechism. Do you support what the Catechism says about homosexuality? Or is your snide remark indicative of the fact that you do not support what the Catechism says? Which is it?
It seems you think that people with large families somehow run out of love once the number of children gets to a certain size. What number of children do you think that is? Six, seven, maybe eight?
The Church says that married couples must always be open to new life. It would seem you disagree with that also. True?
You also seem to be saying that this decreed openess to life is irresponsible because it results in big families. Therefore I would have to assume you are in favour of contraception. Correct? What about the ultimate form of contraception, abortion. Do you agree with the Church’s teachings on abortion?
Therefore couples who have big families and do not have the money for all the materialistic trappings of modern society are being cruel and abusive to their children. Is that what you are saying?
I look forward to your answers.
C
caoindealbhan
Guest
J
John21652
Guest
Firstly, you need to learn to use the ‘quote’ tags properly. Having all your responses inside a text box undifferentiated from the text you are quoting makes responding difficult.
In not supporting that part of the Catechism, you are actually denying the moral foundations of the entire Church and promoting moral relativism. You can’t do that and call yourself a Catholic.
I would also like to know how you arrive at the number of children suitable for modern couples as being Four.
*From your previous answer it is obvious you think “modern couples” can afford four children and from what you have added here, anything over four and the “modern couple” are ‘cruel’ and ‘abusive’. It would seem that you are being very judgemental with regards to “modern couples”, which is contradictory of your criticism of the Catholic Church for being judgemental about “God’s creation”. I also have to ask, aren’t you being very prescriptive here with your moral edicts, which is at odds with your self stated relativist edicts regarding you personally? There seems to be a dichotomy between what you desire and would allow for yourself and what you would allow for others.
Then perhaps you should remove the ‘Catholic’ tag from your profile. Being a Catholic means accepting and supporting the Catechism and the Church’s teachings. I never asked whether you have ever felt disordered. If you do not accept the Church’s catechist teachings on this subject, then you are accepting a disordered behaviour which is outside Natural Law moral boundaries. The Church is predicated on Natural Law morality. It says so in the Catechism.
Just because a comment might be logical doesn’t mean it’s not snyde.
In not supporting that part of the Catechism, you are actually denying the moral foundations of the entire Church and promoting moral relativism. You can’t do that and call yourself a Catholic.
Are you suggesting that modern couples are less able to look after and love larger families than couples of, say, fifty years ago? After all, in your previous post you mentioned the big families of the past as being “cruel” and “abusive” and depriving children of “quality time”. Or are you saying that all large families have always fitted this mould? If you are saying all large families have always fitted this mould, why did you mention “modern couples”?
I would also like to know how you arrive at the number of children suitable for modern couples as being Four.
Another aspect of Catholicism you disagree with. What do you do, redefine Catholicism to suit your own personal circumstances?
How would you find out if the rhyth method works? Try it out, or research it out? If the latter, why haven’t you done so already? If you had done so already, there would be no reason for you to write “…if it works…” because you’d know the answer. Maybe you need to do the research before answering the questions.
Interesting. Here you adopt an absolutist stance on a moral issue, yet your earlier answers are relativistic. Why are your moral positions contrary?
You have sidestepped this question. You originally wrote *“You never have more children than you can afford. it is cruel and abusive.”
*From your previous answer it is obvious you think “modern couples” can afford four children and from what you have added here, anything over four and the “modern couple” are ‘cruel’ and ‘abusive’. It would seem that you are being very judgemental with regards to “modern couples”, which is contradictory of your criticism of the Catholic Church for being judgemental about “God’s creation”. I also have to ask, aren’t you being very prescriptive here with your moral edicts, which is at odds with your self stated relativist edicts regarding you personally? There seems to be a dichotomy between what you desire and would allow for yourself and what you would allow for others.
Likewise.
C
caoindealbhan
Guest
I
illmatic
Guest
Urgh.
C
caoindealbhan
Guest
First of all, attraction to another person is a gift from God. We don’t understand why sexual preferences change or you can have 2 preferences. I wouldn’t worry about the attraction at this point. Once you meet a man or woman that you want to create a committed relationship with, you then need to seriously consider the other attraction. If the other attraction is so strong that you cannot stay committed then you must step away from that relationship. I don’t think that promiscuous sex is an answer. It tends to cheapen the sex act. Sex needs to be used as an expression of love for the other person you are attracted and committed to. I will pray for you.
J
John21652
Guest
Could you possibly learn to use the quote button at the bottom of each post? Not too hard is it?
As for “people today are reading our dialogue and taking notes”; So?
To answer your first sentence regarding one dimensional people. What you are effectively saying is that anyone who adheres to a coherent moral system is one dimensional and in the process, you are excusing your incoherent and uncohesive moral beliefs. You are also inferring that someone who adopts moral relativity is a multi-dimensional person! Like the arch moral relativists Hitler and Stalin were multi-dimensional people!! I would suggest that adhering to a coherent morality takes a personal discipline that is the hallmark of a complete and well rounded person and not someone who merely acquiesces with what goes on around them. That is at odds with your second to last sentence and flies in the face of God’s coherent and cohesive moral system as espoused by the Church and which you condone being taught to children.
Pray tell, which “…creations of God…” are unnatural and opposed by the Church?
Easy. You are promoting moral relativism. You are denying Natural Law and morality, upon which the Catholic Church is predicated.
Strange you should write “Bingo” in response to my use of the phrase “this mould”. After all, “this mould” refers to “cruel” and “abusive” large families, which is a class created by you and no-one else!
As for “people today are reading our dialogue and taking notes”; So?
So, from your own experience and your rationalising, you now think that “modern families” should have no more than four kids. Correct? Isn’t that nothing more than trying to impose your own subjective experience onto others? I was one of seven kids. How would you like it if I decreed “modern families” should have seven kids? My justifications for being so prescriptive would be just as valid as yours!
Ah, so you have a priviledged relationship with the Holy Spirit, who tells you Catholicism is wrong and you are right!!
So you do admit you have no knowledhe of the rhythym method.
I am at a loss as to how your rational thought processes can lead you to contrary moral positions. One of the tests for a valis moral system is consistency. The attempts at new moral systems down through history which failed dismally is because they had no cosnsitency, no internal logic. That is what defines moral relativity.
Again you are showing great inconsistency in what you say you beleive in. You say the Church has much to offer when Children are young. I take it that is because the moral guidance is important and effective during the formative years of young lives. However, then you go on to say many teachings become “…questionable if not hate filled…” in later life. How is it that kids are taught Ok moral values yet those values turn into something hateful and questionable later? That is just plain illogical. Unless, of course, the real reason is that in later years people abandon their earlier values because of the distractions of the bigger world into which they go. That is no cause for condemning the values as taught by the Church, but is cause for condemning the weakness and folly of those who abandon their learned values. Obviously you value those teachings because you said they are valuable to children.
To answer your first sentence regarding one dimensional people. What you are effectively saying is that anyone who adheres to a coherent moral system is one dimensional and in the process, you are excusing your incoherent and uncohesive moral beliefs. You are also inferring that someone who adopts moral relativity is a multi-dimensional person! Like the arch moral relativists Hitler and Stalin were multi-dimensional people!! I would suggest that adhering to a coherent morality takes a personal discipline that is the hallmark of a complete and well rounded person and not someone who merely acquiesces with what goes on around them. That is at odds with your second to last sentence and flies in the face of God’s coherent and cohesive moral system as espoused by the Church and which you condone being taught to children.
D
dsilb
Guest
I agree completely with this comment. I am 29, happily married father with three awesome kids. My life is as close to perfect as it could be, except I’m bi. Society has made me feel guilty and carry this cross alone, who would understand? People would look at my entire life as a lie, which it is not by far! Accepting this part of me and telling my wife, after years of prayer, has tremendously helped me. I now have support here on earth as well as God. It would be great to find other fathers or husbands/fiancees in this situation who need support and feel helpless. There is help and support out there and we should never forget God is a loving and forgiving God.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
It is puzzling that you, as a self identified married Catholic with three awesome kids, take off on the reply of an agnostic who advised in open forum that embracing bisexual tendencies may not be of any disadvantage and that it’s best to stay away from people of faith, including those who belong to your faith.
If you mean to say that your wife has accepted this part of you having the tendency, it’s one thing, but another if the meaning is that you and she are collaborators to a lifestyle that justifies active bisexuality and indulgence in sin even if conducted discreetly. Such a scenario would be so confusing to your children. I hope you mean the former.
Yes, there is help and support out there and God is loving and ever forgiving of truly repented transgressions.
,
H
Hadrianus
Guest
I have no idea what medications you were taking; but great care must be taken in “playing around” with these kinds of drugs. Too early a discontinuance, or the wrong mixture can cause all sorts of reactions.Panic attacks and irratiional thoughts being one of the more common. By the way, most men can recognize if another guy is good looking That’s not bisexuality. And if you are attracted to women that means you are a heterosexual. As I understand it bisexuals feel strong sexual attractions to both sexes, this is not what you are describing
S
spv1g08
Guest
BTW I am glad for you dsilb that your wife is fulling accepting of who you are. Never forget who you really are.
You notice this dsilb. InSearchofGrace refers to gods forgiveness being given to you only if you repent your sins of i.e. being bisexual. Lets not begin getting into somantics discussing tendencies over falling within the bisexual orientation, be it at whatever extreme of the scale. You are bisexual. So he’s basically saying to you in a nutshell heres the keys to your car but don’t you dare drive it. What this response from InSearchofGod clearly illustrates is the very point I was trying to make about avoiding religious types as the majority of will obviously have an issue with you bisexuality and in turn attempt to make you feel that you are wrong in some way. As for the opinion regarding it being confusing for your children what he means is that as a sexual orientation it may clash with what the catholic scriptures “claim” to mean and to be taught as. What’s more your child might just realise they are themselves bisexual/ homosexual if your orientation was to be known to them and they might interpret it as being ok. Although I suppose a repressed child who may go onto suffer mental illness, depression, anxiety etc is perfectly fine so long as they don’t embrace the very cause of their depression, i.e. a clash of belief system with true sexual orientation (being gay). Just one question for InSearchofGrace. Would you rather your child suffered a life of mental turmoil regarding their sexuality and marry someone of opposite sex or live fulfilled and a happy, healthy life haven embraced their sexuality??
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Loving the other person isn’t wrong, shagging them is.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I nearly missed the bolded part because your post was not directed to me but to dslib.
The premise of your question needs correction. If a child of mine should grow up to have struggles with homosexuality or bisexuality issues, I would not want to add to his/her ‘mental turmoil’ by pressuring marriage at all. It may that in your agnostic worldview, a healthy life haven is embracing disordered sexuality.
Sexuality has a meaning and direction that is not homosexual or bisexual. You are right, this is what the faith teaches, drawn from the Scriptures, natural law and the Cathchism, and what the Pope and the bishops affirm. If a Catholic is same sex attracted exclusively or some of the time (which is the case with a bisexual, as dslib here seems to be saying of himself, proving that he is exercising a choice of sexual partner), the inclination is not to be cultivated or developed. He is called to chastity within his marriage as is his case by the Church to which he belongs. Chastity does not mean a meaningless, useless life. It does not spell the end of the world. He has a wife to whom he is lawfully wedded and they have three kids!
Please do not evangelise Catholics in this forum to go against Catholic teaching. It is against the rules, if you bother to check.
…
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The part of my post directed to spv1g08 as above should read:
If a child of mine should grow up to have struggles with homosexuality or bisexuality issues, I would not want to add to his/her ‘mental turmoil’ by pushing my son / daughter to marry at all. Your agnostic worldview may be that a happy healthy life haven is embracing one’s sexuality no matter what. In Catholic philosophy, a disordered sexuality is not to be embraced.
,
S
spv1g08
Guest
What I pose to you is when in utero the child is exposed to both reduced levels of and misdirected amounts of testosterone thereby the child (as in a male) develops many brain structures more closely resembling that of a females, particularly in regards to regions directing sexual orientation. The child is either born with the brain of a bisexual or homosexual or heterosexual for that matter and there is no environmental factor that can change that. Depending on the individuals exposure to different sexualities determines only when they ‘come out’ and is not a determining factor in them “becoming” gay, bi-, etc. It is purely the prejudice both the currently highest figures in religion hold bolstered by biased interpretations of the scriptures and those historically have held high posts in determining and dictating interpretations. Interpretations aside original scribers of the scriptures did themselves hold prejudice due to what was then a lack of scientific evidence available to counteract their arguements.
So I was perfectly happy with the way I phrased my original question, just either your ignorance to the evidence currently available on the topic or just plain ignorance means that you refuse to believe they’re born this way, i.e. gay, bi- straight etc. I hold nothing against you my friend for the beliefs you hold that historically are very grounded in tradition, but I do urge you for the sake of those you love that might just one day turn out to realise they are gay or bi- that you are able to accept them for not just the sexuality that shouldn’t define someone anyway but the good things they do day-day. I have a huge number of gay and bi- friends and their lifestyle choices are not mine to dispute based on my opinions/ beliefs but I see them as a whole person. Everyone is entitled to the freedom to be the person they are for it is fuelled prejudice that mean many people suffer mental illness at the fist of those peoples opinions and dislikes purely for being gay etc.
I am bisexual do you think I will go to hell one day just for standing by who I am?
J
John21652
Guest
Wow. You’ve discovered the cause of homosexuality. Will you be publishing anytime soon? Don’t delay, because all those scientists and researchers who have done twin studies and measured hormone levels and pheremone levels and brain sizes and a host of other things will be earger to read your findings. Now that you’ve concluded that testosterone levels in the womb are the problem, simple monitoring of those leve;ls and adjusting them should solve the problem.
So your studies have totally ruled out environmental factors then? That’ll give hope to the geneticists who are busy looking for the gay gene.I
Predjudices? Biases? You have gone to great lengths to explain your theory about why the abnormality of homosexuality and bi-sexuality exist. You know, the testosterone levels in the uterus you told us about. You even said they were “reduced levels” and "misdirected. In other words, you have been describing something going wrong; something not normal. If you were describing something that was normal, you wouldn’t have been using adjectives such as “reduced” and “misdirected”. Now, despite our scientific experience, such as it is, you are describing something that is not normal. Just like the biblical scholars did. You call them “predjudiced” and “biased”, yet they have done exactly as you have - they have described behaviour which is not normal. Like a whole lot of other human behaviours, the Biblical scholars wrote that this form of behaviour is morally wrong. It is morally wrong because it is against what is considered as normative human behaviour and not in the best interests of human societies. It causes harm. That’s the part you don’t like, isn’t it? You want the moral edicts to be changed to accomodate this behaviour.
Oh, I do so hope you will publish real soon. The scientific community, geneticists in particular, will be waiting with bated breath. There’s just one problem though. Why is it that when twin studies are conducted, homosexuality does not occur 100% of the time, even amongst maternal (identical) twins? Maybe the testosterone levels wax and wane?
Even in communities where homosexuality is accepted, the mental health problems still exist. As this tells us -
Just as it is for the rest of us, it all depends upon how you behave.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
- Status