Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic1seeks said:
What about infertile couples? How is it sex ordered towards procreation if the couple knows the act will not be fruitful?
Click to expand...
Because all the actions that an infertile couple are doing are still actions that look to or are directed towards procreation.

I think this analogy, borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and trenchant Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes, limns how an infertile couple’s marital act may still be ordered towards procreation quite well:

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end.

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.
 
PRmerger said:
Because all the actions that an infertile couple are doing are still actions that look to or are directed towards procreation.

I think this analogy, borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and trenchant Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes, limns how an infertile couple’s marital act may still be ordered towards procreation quite well:

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end.

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.
Click to expand...
I like Marc Barnes, especially since he is around my age. 😃 Good to have thinking Catholics out there that are young and active in the faith! The baseball game was a creative analogy. I still think it’s flawed, though. When infertile couples do have sex, they are doing so *knowing *that their end will not be fruitful. How could their intent in the act be to produce a new human when they know that they will not? The infertile couple may have the basic mechanical parts that make the sexual act “ordered to” procreation, but in fact the end will not be procreation. If a sexual act is supposed to be open to a new creation, how can an infertile couple, well, “do it,” if no new creation is to come?
 
catholic1seeks said:
I like Marc Barnes, especially since he is around my age. 😃 Good to have thinking Catholics out there that are young and active in the faith! The baseball game was a creative analogy. I still think it’s flawed, though. When infertile couples do have sex, they are doing so *knowing *that their end will not be fruitful. How could their intent in the act be to produce a new human when they know that they will not? The infertile couple may have the basic mechanical parts that make the sexual act “ordered to” procreation, but in fact the end will not be procreation. If a sexual act is supposed to be open to a new creation, how can an infertile couple, well, “do it,” if no new creation is to come?
Click to expand...
How do they know their sexual union won’t be fruitful? When I buy a Powerball ticket, I am open to winning the jackpot. When I set $2 on fire, there is no possibility that that $2 can win me the jackpot.
 
catholic1seeks said:
I like Marc Barnes, especially since he is around my age. 😃 Good to have thinking Catholics out there that are young and active in the faith! The baseball game was a creative analogy. I still think it’s flawed, though. When infertile couples do have sex, they are doing so *knowing *that their end will not be fruitful. How could their intent in the act be to produce a new human when they know that they will not? The infertile couple may have the basic mechanical parts that make the sexual act “ordered to” procreation, but in fact the end will not be procreation. If a sexual act is supposed to be open to a new creation, how can an infertile couple, well, “do it,” if no new creation is to come?
Click to expand...
There does not need to be any “knowing” one is going to procreate for the marital act to be moral. It merely has to be “ordered towards” its proper end.

When a couple engages in the marital act on a day when the woman is not ovulating, and she knows this, **there is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in the marital embrace even if they know she cannot conceive.

**
 
aemcpa said:
How do they know their sexual union won’t be fruitful? When I buy a Powerball ticket, I am open to winning the jackpot. When I set $2 on fire, there is no possibility that that $2 can win me the jackpot.
Click to expand...
I was working off of the definition of infertility. Even many defenders of the common Catholic explanation (for why it is morally acceptable and not contradictory to the prohibition of homosexual acts, for example) start with the idea that infertility means the inability to conceive children.
 
PRmerger said:
There does not need to be any “knowing” one is going to procreate for the marital act to be moral. It merely has to be “ordered towards” its proper end.
Click to expand...
I would say there is a difference between knowing one will procreate and one will not.
When a couple engages in the marital act on a day when the woman is not ovulating, and she knows this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in the marital embrace even if they know she cannot conceive.
Click to expand...
I am in need of fleshing out all of this teaching more. I have read Humanae Vitae, for example. Because I am not so sure if I fully agree (or at least understand) the Church’s construct here–on sexuality in general.
 
MOST instances of marital intercourse are infertile. Most instance of marital intercourse are not procreative in the normal course of events even with no contraception practiced. Women are only fertile for a short period of time each month. The problem is not that marital intercourse may be infertile. It often is. Conception does not occur with every instance of marital intercourse.

But married heterosexual couples are able to join in marital intercourse, which can be procreative. Same sex couples never can. The are incapable of marital intercourse. Thus marriage is impossible for them.
 
catholic1seeks said:
I am in need of fleshing out all of this teaching more. I have read Humanae Vitae, for example. Becaue I am not so sure if I fully agree (or at least) the Church’s construct here.
Click to expand...
Whether you “agree with” the Church’s “construct” or not is neither here nor there in terms of its validity for you and for me. We are not excused from compliance based on whether or not we “agree.” This is the modern heresy.

There will be no rethinking, evolution, or “change” in the Church’s teaching on sexuality. For starters, the tradition is part of the deposit of faith and Sacred Tradition, linked to Scripture. In addition, sexuality, reproduction, marriage, the family, and personhood are all integrated in Catholic moral doctrine.
 
I think these arguments would be a lot easier if people had a better understanding of “marital chastity”

I mean the full teaching of the Church is much larger than just “procreative” and “unitive”, as strong and beautiful, and compelling as all that is. Not to diminish it one iota.

But the Church’s teaching goes FAR beyond such logic.

If Catholics could better explain marital chastity to others we might make faster ground. We’d run circles around the secular, psychobabbling, rights claiming crowd. These people tend to be very unhappy types too…because they don’t truly believe or know that love means total self donation.

Marital chastity says that when I enter intimacy with my wife, my focus should be totally oriented toward my wife’s pleasure and joy. Totally. I should desire and seek that in our intimacy she realizes again that there is no woman more loved than she, by God and me. She is loved as no other onthe face of the earth. God is pleased when I make this my driving intention. He is very pleased and my wife is very pleased. She can sense my self donation.

Intimacy is not “mutual selfishness” or “balanced, reciprocal masturbation”…No…I should enter intimacy expecting absolutely no pleasure. All my focus needs to be given to my wife…body, intellect, imagination, will…all focused on loving her. Total self-donation.

When couples learn this new way of intimacy bedrooms explode in laughter, joy, and happiness.

“Love claims no rights…it seeks to serve”.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Whether you “agree with” the Church’s “construct” or not is neither here nor there in terms of its validity for you and for me. We are not excused from compliance based on whether or not we “agree.” This is the modern heresy.

There will be no rethinking, evolution, or “change” in the Church’s teaching on sexuality. For starters, the tradition is part of the deposit of faith and Sacred Tradition, linked to Scripture. In addition, sexuality, reproduction, marriage, the family, and personhood are all integrated in Catholic moral doctrine.
Click to expand...
Celebrating Pentecost today, the priest reminded us during the homily and it really grasped me, that the Holy Spirit is in charge of the Church: Pope John XXIII had difficulty sleeping one night, said my pastor, but the Holy Spirit said “Go to sleep–I run the Church, not you.”

I know the Magisterium is a third of the “three-legged stool” of Christian truth (Apostolic Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium). Behind all of this is God, ultimately, and throughout history God has guided the Church into deeper truth at the propper time. Many on this forum may not understand the feeling of the need to be led to a deeper understanding of the truth regarding this subject. Perhaps the teaching is correct. In the Hierarchy of Truths, the teaching of homosexuality is most definitely not central nor top. It has not been the topic of dogmatic definitions or the priority of Ecumenical Councils. So then again, maybe the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into a deeper understanding. There was a time when God led the Church to a deeper understanding of the Trinity; of Mary’s role in salvation history; of the nature of the sacraments, especially of the Eucharist as presence and sacrifice; of the role of the Pope; and even of the gift of infallibility itself.

What I do believe is this: At the very least, if the teaching of the Church with regards to sexuality and sexual matters is to remain constant, then the magisterium must to more to minister to homosexual persons. As I have said before, maybe elsewhere, many homosexual persons feel this aspect of themselves as reaching to the very core of who they are as individuals. For their Church to use the language of “intrinsic disorder” or “instrinsically evil” can be extremely hard for the average Catholic who is not well-versed in theology.

There may be no change in teaching. Maybe this is the Truth; I am on search for it, and I really hope I am on an honest search. But I will not submit to something on a whim, when I am in doubt of the truth of it and especially when the subject deals with who I am as a person.
 
Elizium23 said:
…as I pointed out in page 2 of this thread, which has gone in circles for days and days now.
Click to expand...
And I am quite aware that for many Catholics this is “modern heresy.”
That’s not the point of my question and my continual engagement in this discussion. I knew the other view was not Church teaching. But the point is this: It is not *current *Church teaching, hence the question.
 
You keep bringing up “current Church teaching” as if it is something that will change; Divine Law is the basis of Eternal Truth which does not. If you expect the Church to come to a “deeper understanding” of homosexuality, what do you envision that will look like? IMHO, it will be the discovery that sodomy is even worse than we thought. It is currently destroying modern culture quite adequately along with the rest of the Population Control heresies. Why do you think that the moral decay and erosion happening in the world of today will convince the Church that sodomy is all that?

Please provide prior evidence of doctrinal repudiation. You attempted to posit EENS as this example and I proved to you why it is not comparable. I suggest you go through the Bible and find truths which the Church has reversed since the time of their enshrinement in Mosaic Law. Then we can point out to you how these laws were disciplinary or simply unnecessary with the coming of Christ. There has been no doctrinal reversal since Adam and Eve bit the apple. Homosexuality was wrong then and they knew it. Moses taught the same. Jesus believed this as an observant Jew, and His apostles wrote against it in conformity with the Truth. The Church never challenged or disputed this.

What we have seen in 2000 years of Church history, as I explained, are theologians exploring and discovering the true nature of Divine Law and how that relates to our sexuality. The development is there, but it is a growing tree that does not wither and die as you would like. The teachings on homosexuality and modern problems like contraception and IVF and sterilization are all bolstered and strengthened by our better understanding of Divine Law. We have never encountered a hint or inkling of doubt that would encourage us to repudiate it. If the teaching were repudiated then it would make the Church into a hive of liars guided by Satan, not a divine institution guided by the Holy Spirit. We are proud to be the latter and your thread will not change our status.
 
Every single one of us is intrinsically disordered in some way, great or small. But if we are waiting for some development of doctrine on the part of the Church to make us feel better about fornication, masturbation, adultery, contraception, cohabitation, or theft, greed, sloth, malicious talk or any other inherent vice, we are going to be in for a long wait indeed. The same applies to homosexual sin as to any other sexual sin.
 
catholic1seeks said:
And I am quite aware that for many Catholics this is “modern heresy.”
That’s not the point of my question and my continual engagement in this discussion. I knew the other view was not Church teaching. But the point is this: It is not *current *Church teaching, hence the question.
Click to expand...
Explain what you mean by current Church teaching…how does it differ from what you believe to not be current Church teaching?
 
Elizium23 said:
You keep bringing up “current Church teaching” as if it is something that will change; Divine Law is the basis of Eternal Truth which does not. If you expect the Church to come to a “deeper understanding” of homosexuality, what do you envision that will look like? IMHO, it will be the discovery that sodomy is even worse than we thought. It is currently destroying modern culture quite adequately along with the rest of the Population Control heresies. Why do you think that the moral decay and erosion happening in the world of today will convince the Church that sodomy is all that?
Click to expand...
  1. Not to take the seriousness away, but… what does IMHO mean? I always see it! :rolleyes:
  2. I am not sure of what to call it because I have never learned the names of the different types of fallacies, but I am pretty sure you made one by entering into some strange conflation of homosexuality and the “moral decay and eriosion” in the world. Or is that “correlation does not equal causation”? You obviously come from the strong belief that homosexual acts are indeed very much intrinsic evils, especially since you regard those who engage in them (i.e., homosexual persons) as connected to the “Population Control heresies” and today’s moral decay.
  3. I believe in Eternal Truth and Divine Law. (I know you weren’t necessarily saying I don’t.) I do think that, as we can see from history, some teachings of the Church are current teachings that develop and change over time. But of course I regard the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as “current,” or else there would be no point in my having this thread.
  4. In the original post I asked if the Church would ever change its teaching so as to not view homosexual acts and relationships as intrinsically evil. The development would get from where the magisterium’s official position is now to that. What that involves, I’m not quite sure. That’s why I had the thread. But plenty of people who are certain such a development could never happen have been helpful nonetheless in describing what developments would have to be made.
 
The church might give more space for homosexual people in the church in the future , but it would not say yes" to have sex" or to have gay marriage. As Ross Douthat says in his book " bad religion" we might want to recover old ways in the christian culture to answer the homosexual issue .
 
catholic1seeks said:
  1. In the original post I asked if the Church would ever change its teaching so as to not view homosexual acts and relationships as intrinsically evil. The development would get from where the magisterium’s official position is now to that. What that involves, I’m not quite sure. That’s why I had the thread. But plenty of people who are certain such a development could never happen have been helpful nonetheless in describing what developments would have to be made.
Click to expand...
That proposed change, however, would not be a development, but a complete reversal. That’s not going to happen.
 
arabic_catholic said:
The church might give more space for homosexual people in the church in the future , but it would not say yes" to have sex" or to have gay marriage. As Ross Douthat says in his book " bad religion" we might want to recover old ways in the christian culture to answer the homosexual issue .
Click to expand...
Hi.
What are these “old ways” that could be recovered?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top