Evangelicals with gay children challenging church

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Yes it is very convenient for heterosexual couples. It is also proper, normal and natural sexual relations…

Unless you can show that homosexual sex is proper, normal and natural.
Click to expand...
That oral sex between heterosexual couples that does not lead to completion (i.e. foreplay) might be considered “proper, normal and natural” is only because some (probably relatively recent) theologian in the Catholic Church has defined it as “proper, normal and natural”. There is no Biblical text on this matter and I doubt that even the early Church fathers had anything to say about oral sex. Some medieval Catholic theologians considered oral sex of any kind to be sodomy.
 
Thorolfr said:
That oral sex between heterosexual couples that does not lead to completion (i.e. foreplay) might be considered “proper, normal and natural” is only because some (probably relatively recent) theologian in the Catholic Church has defined it as “proper, normal and natural”. There is no Biblical text on this matter and I doubt that even the early Church fathers had anything to say about oral sex. Some medieval Catholic theologians considered oral sex of any kind to be sodomy.
Click to expand...
As I have said before there are NO teachings on this moral issue.I have been unable to find any documents regarding this. It is an argument I have seen often used by advocates of homosexual activity to defend it as normal.
 
Thorolfr said:
That oral sex between heterosexual couples that does not lead to completion (i.e. foreplay) might be considered “proper, normal and natural” is only because some (probably relatively recent) theologian in the Catholic Church has defined it as “proper, normal and natural”. There is no Biblical text on this matter and I doubt that even the early Church fathers had anything to say about oral sex. Some medieval Catholic theologians considered oral sex of any kind to be sodomy.
Click to expand...
Still trying to corrupt Catholics into thinking homosexual practice is acceptable to God?
That was a rhetorical question by the way.
 
cjforJesus said:
Actually I am not sure that is entirely true. There are no magisterial documents stating what is permissible in regards to sexual activity between married couples. If there is I cannot find them. The Catechism makes no mention of it either. The only thing I can find is the condemnation of homosexual acts(sodomy) as sinful. In no case can they be approved.
Click to expand...
As was pointed out before sodomy is not synonymous with homosexual acts. Although, all acts of homosexuality is sodomy.

Another thread dealt with this so I will repost part of a response
The official Church Teaching states that each sex act must be ordered toward unification and procreation. There is no Church Teaching on what is or is not allowed as far as foreplay or preparation for sex. (If someone thinks there is a Catholic Teaching that says that oral stimulation of the genitals in preparation for sex is illicit, please provide it. I won’t hold my breath though. )
Click to expand...
The argument that “oral stimulation in preparation for natural sex is licit” is based on natural moral law and the fact that stimulating the genitals in preparation for natural sex is ordered toward unification and toward procreation so long as the intent is to complete natural sex. If the argument was made that the oral stimulation is illicit because it involves using the organs contrary to their purpose, then you would necessarily have to conclude that it is also illicit to touch you spouse’s genitals with your hand or to even rub the genitals on your spouse’s body as you prepare for natural sex. This would lead to the natural conclusion that any touching of the genitals to any part of the body that is not the complimentary genital is also illicit. Therefore, it would be a sin for your wife to try to stimulate your penis prior to sex. This rules out foreplay and then one can only have sex if one is able to instantly achieve an erection without any stimulus
Click to expand...
 
cjforJesus said:
As I have said before there are NO teachings on this moral issue.I have been unable to find any documents regarding this. It is an argument I have seen often used by advocates of homosexual activity to defend it as normal.
Click to expand...
As I said, medieval theologians talked about this matter. For example, Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534) in his well known commentary on the Summa of Thomas Aquinas considered it a violation of nature both to copulate with the wrong person (i.e. homosexuality) and to copulate with the right person’s wrong part. Anytime copulation takes place outside the “proper vessel” (i.e the vagina) it is a sin and is unnatural in his opinion. I doubt that he would agree that putting a man’s penis in a woman’s mouth, even that of his wife and in foreplay, would be putting the penis into its “proper vessel.” It would definitely be a case of putting it into the right person’s “wrong part”. 😉
 
adrift said:
As was pointed out before sodomy is not synonymous with homosexual acts. Although, all acts of homosexuality is sodomy.

Another thread dealt with this so I will repost part of a response
Click to expand...
Could you please provide me with the vatican document. I was sure there were no official teachings on this.
 
Thorolfr said:
As I said, medieval theologians talked about this matter. For example, Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534) in his well known commentary on the Summa of Thomas Aquinas considered it a violation of nature both to copulate with the wrong person (i.e. homosexuality) and to copulate with the right person’s wrong part. Anytime copulation takes place outside the “proper vessel” (i.e the vagina) it is a sin and is unnatural in his opinion. I doubt that he would agree that putting a man’s penis in a woman’s mouth, even that of his wife and in foreplay, would be putting the penis into its “proper vessel.” It would definitely be a case of putting it into the right person’s “wrong part”. 😉
Click to expand...
And again I would say this argument falls flat because there are no teachings that oral sex even between married people is moral.
 
cjforJesus said:
The document saying that sodomy is a moral licit act for married couples.
Click to expand...
Did you read what I posted?
The official Church Teaching states that each sex act must be ordered toward unification and procreation. There is no Church Teaching on what is or is not allowed as far as foreplay or preparation for sex. (If someone thinks there is a Catholic Teaching that says that oral stimulation of the genitals in preparation for sex is illicit, please provide it. I won’t hold my breath though. )
Click to expand...
Where is the document that says it isn’t?
 
adrift said:
Did you read what I posted?

The official Church Teaching states that each sex act must be ordered toward unification and procreation. There is no Church Teaching on what is or is not allowed as far as foreplay or preparation for sex. (If someone thinks there is a Catholic Teaching that says that oral stimulation of the genitals in preparation for sex is illicit, please provide it. I won’t hold my breath though. )

Where is the document that says it isn’t?
Click to expand...
.All these threads on this topic go dead because there is no teaching on it at all. It is an argument used by homosexuals to validate their acts.If it is OK for married heterosexuals then why not us. I have seen it on more than this forum.

Where is the magisterial document though on this official church teaching you claim.
 
Does it really matter all that much? 🤷

I’m weary of the ongoing debate over whether or not gay sex is bad, or what types of straight sex aren’t bad.

:manvspc:
 
cjforJesus said:
.All these threads on this topic go dead because there is no teaching on it at all. It is an argument used by homosexuals to validate their acts.If it is OK for married heterosexuals then why not us. I have seen it on more than this forum.

Where is the magisterial document though on this official church teaching you claim.
Click to expand...
The official Church Teaching states that each sex act must be ordered toward unification and procreation
Click to expand...

Catechism

I suspect that you are not reading my post closely.
 
cjforJesus said:
And again I would say this argument falls flat because there are no teachings that oral sex even between married people is moral.
Click to expand...
How could what I wrote in explaining the position of Cardinal Cajetan fall flat with you? He agreed with you that oral sex is not moral even between married couples since that would be “right person” but “wrong part”.
 
cjforJesus said:
Emily,I am offering info from the Catechism. God does not reject His children but does reject sinful behavior.The bible and Church have always viewed homosexual sex as very disordered and depraved.A very clear distinction is made between the person and their actions though.
Click to expand...
👍
 
adrift said:
2447 of the Catechism
The spiritual works of mercy are:
•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
**•To admonish sinners; **
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead

It isn’t Christian to promote sin which is not an equally loving path at all.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Thorolfr said:
That oral sex between heterosexual couples that does not lead to completion (i.e. foreplay) might be considered “proper, normal and natural” is only because some (probably relatively recent) theologian in the Catholic Church has defined it as “proper, normal and natural”. There is no Biblical text on this matter and I doubt that even the early Church fathers had anything to say about oral sex. Some medieval Catholic theologians considered oral sex of any kind to be sodomy.
Click to expand...
Leaving Catholic teaching out of the discussion…heterosexual relations are the only proper, natural and normal sexual relations in nature. OK, oral may not be “proper” technically…but even you have to admit that any other “sexual behavior” is unnatural.
 
adrift said:

Catechism

I suspect that you are not reading my post closely.
Click to expand...
Sorry,but there is nothing in the Catechism or in that references that allows sodomy.Like I said there is no teaching.The only one I can find even close is the one regarding homosexual acts not being approved under ANY circumstances.It does not say person but ACT which implies a certain behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top