Difficult articles on homosexuality

[AngelusDomini]

(2) the ordering of an act, whether sex act or not, is deduced by its most proximate end
(3) “Ordered towards procreation”

Couldn’t this be used as an argument against NFP? To deliberately plan intercourse to coincide with the least fertile period surely shows a desire to not conceive. The intent therefore is simply for physical pleasure.

 

[puppson]

Generations have come and gone. Plenty of time for culture to change. I have no doubt the lgbtqetc activists have been just as busy indoctrinating children in Germany as they have here.

 

[puppson]

Indeed. Homosexual acts violate natural and Divine law. Case closed.

 

[OSN]

There is no need or reason to defend the Church in regards to its stance on homosexuality, what is needed more is to reflect how Jesus taught us to live and treat each other, instead of regurgitating religious/ church opinion that is well established and is not going to change to better humanity or themselves.

But if one wants to, i suppose the proper thing to do if one can’t live by how Jesus taught , is to get as theologically educated as possible, research as much Church doctrine, canon law, homilies, and etc, recite theories on natural law, and try their best to rationalize why in all of Gods infinite love and mercy He would create Homosexuals, to then have humanity and the church label it unnatural or a disorder, and a sin, versus those people who are born with physical or mental defects and not label that a sin, then to take all of that and still say we are made in the image and likeness of God and that God doesn’t make mistakes.

Good luck though trying to convince rational people of an illogical theological stance that even Jesus himself never took. To be fair, it does make sense to those who are in the realm of theology and religious edict / strife and discord.

 

[alphonsus1]

No, it’s not the intention of the actor that allows him to deduce the moral object. Rather, a couple deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of whether the woman is in a fertile or infertile state, is “ordered towards procreation.”

This is because the most proximate end of an act is always deduced by the most immediate end (in the world of cause and effect) that is in conformity with a human good (in this case procreation). This immediate end is the man giving his seed and the woman receiving it. The woman’s contribution, the egg, is a more remote consideration. Conception only happens 7-10 days after insemination. It only occurs dependent upon a man giving his seed. Implantation, cell division, and birth are even more remote. These occur in a process that lasts 9 months, which itself only occurred dependent upon and because of conception (which was dependent upon insemination)!

 

[edwest211]

False comparison. And those threads end badly.

 

[puppson]

Considering how wicked contemporary culture is, best to ignore those who want to argue the virtues of homosexual activity. Satan sometimes has a tight grip on them. Of course it’s more problematic if they call themselves “Catholic.” Those folks bring judgment upon themselves because they are spreading heresy.

If they try to indoctrinate children into the abominable lie that homosexual activity is “loving and virtuous,” though, then its time to get righteously angry. Christ is very clear about those who scandalize children.
Millstones.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Seeing your previous posts you read a lot into situations. Your comments on the drag queen story time thread actually made me somewhat worried as your comments went way outside what others might think.

 

[puppson]

Are you referring to the “drag queen” who lay on the floor so he could enjoy the children of others crawling all over him, straddling him, etc. in total violation of the standards of physical contact between child care professionals or volunteers, and children?
That thread?

If so, I’ll repeat what I said there:
Anyone who approves of that physical contact is psychologically and / or ethically unfit to work with children. That includes library staff who have absolutely no excuse in allowing or condoning it.

 

[alphonsus1]

It is not a sin in itself to intend to avoid pregnancy, otherwise single individuals would be sinning by being abstinent. It is not a sin by another name, because “direct contraception,” includes, but is not restricted to, any act with sole immediate end impeding the procreative functioning of a generative faculty, where that generative faculty itself is capable of procreation. This is the sin. It is NOT intending to avoid pregnancy.

It is not a sin in itself for a married couple to avoid pregnancy either (provided they are doing so for a sufficiently proportionate reason). It is not a sin in itself for a married couple to collect knowledge regarding whether or not they are fertile either. And it is definitely moral in itself for a married couple to have loving, sexual intercourse, at any time (the circumstances and intentions must also be good).

Knowing that you are naturally infertile because of factors independent of your will (the knowledge acquired from NFP), is no more an inherent constituent of the object of that intercourse, than knowing you are infertile because of factors dependent upon your will is an inherent constituent of the object (direct contraception like a tubal ligation, for example). All sexual intercourse is inherently procreative.

 

[Peeps]

And i only ask became de having an answer would greatly strengthen our argument. And lighten the temptation to doubt (though ultimately the responsibility falls to us not t to dog by anyway) I think it’s a fair question but correct me if I’m wrong

It wouldn’t matter if you had the best answers in the world for those who question the Scripture.

People will do what they want to do and find ways to justify their choices.

I think that if someone truly, really truly, desires to serve God and love Him supremely, above all else–God will work in that person’s heart to help them resist temptation to sin.

And they won’t be miserable, lonely, and frustrated, and they won’t feel like they are denying who they really are. Instead, they will be filled with joy because they are in right relationship with God, His Church, and their fellow human beings. And they will realize in their soul that they aren’t denying their true self, but rather, they have discovered their true self-a Child of God created to love Him and be loved by Him for all eternity.

That’s how people who are bedridden for decades, unable to walk, talk, or even eat, find joy in their lives–they know that they are a child of the King of the Universe, and that everything that happens to them is glorifying their Lord and King Near the end of her wretched life (by human standards–her rheumatoid arthritis had twisted her body to a point where she looked like a gargoyle), my mother was filled with the joy of the Lord, and everyone that visited her came away with that same joyful heart.

God doesn’t make mistakes when He creates us. He gives us the body, face, talents, lack of talents, brain, health or lack of health, sexuality or lack of sexuality, and everything else that we need to be Totally His.

We just need to stop twisting His creation into something it was never meant to be.

 

[ZMystiCat]

There is no need or reason to defend the Church in regards to its stance on homosexuality

To an extent, there is.

For some, this is an hangup, and they want to know why the Church teaches what it does. It would be uncharitable to not explain it or point them towards helpful resources if we can’t. Personally, my initial interest in Catholicism came from accepting its teachings on sex, marriage, celibacy, contraception, etc. (Granted, those were for different reasons than often mentioned here.) Bear in mind, Jesus was as much a teacher as a miracle worker, and his teachings were as much acts of charity as His healings.

in all of Gods infinite love and mercy He would create Homosexuals

Unless I’m mistaken, the Church hasn’t established this. We know God makes people good and in His image, but we’re not sure where disabilities or disfigurements come from. Inclinations towards evil are a bit easier, since the Church has established the teaching of concupiscence, but when there are potentially biologically reasons for this that could be traced back to the womb, there’s no established teaching.

Does God actively make people like this, knowing that suffering is good?

Does God passively let these people succumb to such problems, again knowing that suffering is good?

Either way, we can assume that one reason God at least allows these things to happen is that suffering is good, but we aren’t sure of how God let’s it happen.

to then have humanity and the church label it unnatural or a disorder, and a sin, versus those people who are born with physical or mental defects and not label that a sin

First of all, the Church does not teach that homosexuality is a sin. Feelings, temptations, and evil inclinations are not themselves sinful. The sin is the embrace of some evil, whether as an act or to deliberately entertainment sinful desires. This is why we don’t consider things like homosexuality, deafness, or psychosis to be sins. But if someone has sex with someone else of the same gender, gossips using sign language, or acts violently towards someone, then those are sins.

Second, any sinful inclination is disordered. It’s not just same sex attraction. It’s also strong inclinations to masturbate, the drive to overeat, and even the desire to skip Mass on Sunday. The point is that they are not properly ordered to what God has called us to, hence “disordered”.

(And sorry to be blunt, but the fact that you made a really common error in presenting the Church’s teaching kind of undermines your statement that there’s no need to defend the Church’s teaching. Lies and misconceptions may not change Church teaching, but they do drive people away from the Church.)

False comparison

If you’re going to accuse someone of a false comparison, you need to actually show how the comparison is false. Otherwise, the accusation is meaningless and totally hinders discussion.

 

[edwest211]

I’d like to see some evidence of the incident you mention.

 

[puppson]

If this were a teacher or volunteer even in my far left state and this came to the attention of the state teaching commission, that would be the last time this man was ever allowed to work with children.

 

[puppson]

The links to screen shots taken from Multinomah County Library’s own Flicker page are found on post #2 of the following thread. I saw them myself on that same Flicker page, shortly before the library got scared and took them down. Too late–others captured them. Such is the Internet.

Preschoolers lying on top of drag queen World News

Just to be clear… Are there really people here defending what amounts to sexual abuse of children?

 

[puppson]

I’m posting just one example of “touching guidelines” on the other thread. Then I’ll leave it alone, in here.

 

[edwest211]

Thank you.

 

[EXdrinker]

One of the problems with this bible verse is that many gay men have never had any relations with women or been sexually attracted to women, so they can hardly be described as abandoning something that they have never done.

You are taking only one aspect of what abandoning means. Once can abandon the idea of something even though one has not engaged in acts of that idea.