He has done that in these times, starting with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. What you are proposing is a much shallower understanding of sexuality, because on the surface there is a path to your desired destination, but once you move deeper into the truth, all the false pathways are cut off.
The Blue: As others would probably agree, this was his personal theology.
There’s actually a misunderstanding in that regard. The Church actually still holds that; it’s just a more complex understanding, having to do with instrumentality and direct vs. indirect, as well as immediate vs. ultimate. These are the kinds of distinctions best resolved by a course in that at a Catholic institution approved by the Church to explicate Catholic doctrine and dogma. The Roman Church is still the ultimate source of salvation. Since this is not the subject of the thread, again, I encourage you to look at other sources for a deeper appreciation of the nuances of salvation.
The doctrine on sexuality is not changeable, no matter how much you wish it to be so, and no matter how many “scientific discoveries” come forth. Again, the Church doesn’t care what the genesis of same-sex attraction is. Nor does it care what the genesis of fornication and adultery are. The motivations and the impulses have no bearing on moral law. We all have immoral impulses, every single one of us, and for the vast majority of the human race (including those in religious life), those impulses are daily struggles, to some degree (to some people, to a great degree).
strength:
Good contribution to the discussion.There’s actually a misunderstanding in that regard. The Church actually still holds that; it’s just a more complex understanding, having to do with instrumentality and direct vs. indirect, as well as immediate vs. ultimate. These are the kinds of distinctions best resolved by a course in that at a Catholic institution approved by the Church to explicate Catholic doctrine and dogma. The Roman Church is still the ultimate source of salvation. Since this is not the subject of the thread, again, I encourage you to look at other sources for a deeper appreciation of the nuances of salvation.
The doctrine on sexuality is not changeable, no matter how much you wish it to be so, and no matter how many “scientific discoveries” come forth. Again, the Church doesn’t care what the genesis of same-sex attraction is. Nor does it care what the genesis of fornication and adultery are. The motivations and the impulses have no bearing on moral law. We all have immoral impulses, every single one of us, and for the vast majority of the human race (including those in religious life), those impulses are daily struggles, to some degree (to some people, to a great degree).
Psychology does not affect the Church’s doctrine. It never will. It is part of the secular bible, authored in the 1960’s and further embellished after that, that all of our impulses are at worst neutral, and for the most part “good.” It is also part of the secular bible which modern Catholics were fed on like mother’s milk, that being able to explain something psychologically removes it from the moral realm entirely. Even that kind of thinking has infected criminal law, to the point where not merely the insane (those unable to distinguish right from wrong) or the psychotic (those not in control of their actions, such as schizophrenics, etc.) are “excused” from criminal penalties. Now even the neurotic can often argue their way out of incarceration, as well as those who merely lack self-control and the willingness to develop discipline.
A development of theology (explanation) is not the same thing as a doctrine evolving from radical point A (not allowed) to radical point B (allowed, simply because it may be “understood” better).
As to the blue, it is nonetheless very helpful to understand more deeply the true nature of sexuality and why the teaching that sex is only moral in the context of marriage cannot change.
Fair enough.
Of course we should not sin.
If you like, for a moment, leave the word sin out of the discussion.
Well quite frankly if they had sex 30 minutes later he wouldn’t exist either.
Yes… I saw this the first time you posted it (or someone else said this), and I did not respond because I thought it was a weak argument. It is obvious that any new human person comes into being (naturally) from the sexual union of a man and woman. So? You seem to be arguing with the Church’s current teaching in mind that sexual acts require procreative ends in view. “One is ordered”: This is church terminology again, basing itself on its current views of Natural Law. For the great number of homosexual persons, including myself, I do not feel naturally “ordered” to the other sex. But then again, I guess I just have a disordered condition?
(addressed to someone else)… However,
I believe we also need to fight against the pharisees in the Church. The sins that particularly need to be dealt with today are lust, gluttony, avarice, wrath, hubris and envy.
It’s not an arugument, it’s an observation. You would like something to change that does not change, as you yourself observe in the following sentence.
Look at the love of a man and a woman in a positive light and appreciate it for what it is:
There is no “current” view of natural law in this regard. It just is.