Gay lobby fighting reparative therapy at the expense of our youth

[Catolico65]

God created woman so that man might not be alone, they are meant for each other and that is why they shall be two in one flesh

Your opinions are noted, I will defer to CC teachings.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Your opinions are noted, I will defer to CC teachings.

Catechism:

• I. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM . . .”

2331 "God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . … God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."115

“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;116 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;117 "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."118

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

2334 "In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."119 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."120

2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.122

2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.124

The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

footnotes

115 FC 11.
116 Gen 1:27.
117 Gen 1:28.
118 Gen 5:1-2.
119 FC 22; Cf. GS 49 § 2.
120 MD 6.
121 Gen 2:24.
122 Cf. Gen 4:1-2, 25-26; 5:1.
123 Mt 5:27-28.
124 Cf. Mt 19:6.

My wording may have been poor.

 

[Cavaradossi]

For those proposing there was no sex before the fall here is what Genesis 2 says:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.* *

Now you are confusing things, for the relevant question here concerns whether sexual desire existed in the garden, not intercourse. Numerous Doctors such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine taught that in the garden there was no sexual desire, and a great number, Augustine being a notable exception, taught that there was no sexual intercourse in the garden. As a faithful Roman Catholic, you are in fact not free to reject the interpretations of Doctors of the Church as mere opinions or to elevate your own scriptural exegesis above their own, because as Pope Benedict XIV taught in De Canonizatione, Doctors of the Church may in no way have their doctrines impugned, for they taught not merely within the Church, but they taught the Church herself.

 

[Cavaradossi]

St. John of Damascus, another doctor of the Chrch also teaches that there was no sexual intercourse (and as a corollary, no sexual desire) in the garden:In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children.

But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of male and female, and Be fruitful and multiply? In answer we shall say that Be fruitful and multiply does not altogether refer to the multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made male and female, and bade them be fruitful and multiply.

Exposition of the Orhodox Faith 4.24
newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

Also, I should note that though St. Augustine taught the possibility that there was intercourse in the garden (but without any sexual desire), he only did so in his later period in response to criticisms from that his teachings on sexuality were Manichaean in origin. In his middle period, St. Augustine speculated that in the garden, the multiplication of mankind did not necessarily have to be accomplished by sexual intercourse, a position which is consistent with the exegeses of the Eastern Fathers who taught that in the garden, there was no sexual intercourse or sexual desire.

Either way, all of these authorities agreed that sexual desire was a product of the fall.

 

[Catolico65]

Now you are confusing things, for the relevant question here concerns whether sexual desire existed in the garden, not intercourse. Numerous Doctors such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine taught that in the garden there was no sexual desire, and a great number, Augustine being a notable exception, taught that there was no sexual intercourse in the garden. As a faithful Roman Catholic, you are in fact not free to reject the interpretations of Doctors of the Church as mere opinions or to elevate your own scriptural exegesis above their own, because as Pope Benedict XIV taught in De Canonizatione, Doctors of the Church may in no way have their doctrines impugned, for they taught not merely within the Church, but they taught the Church herself.

The teachings of the Doctors of the Church are not infallible.

 

[Catolico65]

Also, I should note that though St. Augustine taught the possibility that there was intercourse in the garden (but without any sexual desire), he only did so in his later period in response to criticisms from that his teachings on sexuality were Manichaean in origin. In his middle period, St. Augustine speculated that in the garden, the multiplication of mankind did not necessarily have to be accomplished by sexual intercourse, a position which is consistent with the exegeses of the Eastern Fathers who taught that in the garden, there was no sexual intercourse or sexual desire.

Either way, all of these authorities agreed that sexual desire was a product of the fall.

St Augustine says sexual pleasure existed in Paradise, ie before the fall, in “Contra Julianum”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Now you are confusing things, for the relevant question here concerns whether sexual desire existed in the garden, not intercourse. Numerous Doctors such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine taught that in the garden there was no sexual desire, and a great number, Augustine being a notable exception, taught that there was no sexual intercourse in the garden. As a faithful Roman Catholic, you are in fact not free to reject the interpretations of Doctors of the Church as mere opinions or to elevate your own scriptural exegesis above their own, because as Pope Benedict XIV taught in De Canonizatione, Doctors of the Church may in no way have their doctrines impugned, for they taught not merely within the Church, but they taught the Church herself.

Gents lots of confusions here…
May I contribute my tuppence worth as these topics have been discussed numerous times already on this Forum - some of these discussions I have been involved in and researched previously…

(1) The Church actually has no definitive teaching I am aware of as to whether or not Adam and Eve actually had sex before being kicked out of the Garden. Regardless, there is absolutely no reason why they could not have. Afterall they were commanded by God, immediately after creation, to go forth and multiply - he didn’t put any restrictions on when/where. In fact the Church has never denied, as far as I am aware, the possibility that Adam and Eve could have already actually have had children before their Fall. Obviously no-one knows for sure.

(2) If you read Genesis carefully you will see that birth-pangs were “greatly increased” by the Fall. Which means they existed prelapsarian. The same with death. If Adam and Eve had not eaten of the Tree of Life they would have aged and died. As Augustine and Aquinas both state clearly. Not to so eat would have been a sin. While Paul may be right that by sin death came into the world … that does not seem to intrinsically exclude possible other reasons for death coming into the world.

(3) Sexual Desire: we need to understand that the actual expression is concupiscence which means disordered desire. In fact sex in Eden would have been even better than now - it would have been fully in control of the soul and there would be no embarassing uncontrollable movements of the flesh (hence the need to cloth themselves) which are the visible sign of Man’s sin and the resultant disorder of his own nature.

(4) Many of the early Church Fathers (including Augustine in places) had an abberant (Greek philosophy) understanding of the place of sexuality in the life of grace. It was a widespread blindness of their Age that few escaped. They therefore concluded that reproduction was somehow magical/spiritual to the extent that penile penetration was not required and that Eve would have remained a virgin (even after birth) - ie hymen intact.
These physical conclusions based on valid theological conundrums were ultimately rejected by the Church Universal over time. You can still see echoes of it in some ancient Eastern traditions concerning Mary. You will also note that Church Catechisms of recent times have delicately removed themselves from the once very physically explicit utterances of Mary as Virgin before/during/after childbirth (ie hymen intact). In fact if you want to accept these very physical interpretations you must also accept that Jesus did not pass down the birth canal when he was born (hence Mary allegedly had no labour pains whatsoever) but “exited the womb as he did the tomb”. This sub-tradition from the East has nver been formally defined by the Church as far as I know. All we must accept is that Mary remained a virgin (knowing no man) all or life.
(5) If sexual faculty was perfectly ordered/controlled by the soul then it would have been heterosexual - because sex, created for both unitive and procreative purposes, was clearly meant to be between one man and one woman.
(6) When man lost control over his own nature then disorder in all areas of life became “naturally” possible. Disordered concupiscence (whether hetero or homosexual) is with us even into old age (most of us). Therefore there is no reason to assume that same sex attraction cannot be hard-wired in as well - despite all the efforts of man to the contrary. Having said that, part of our lack of control is due to our own solidarity with the human family. If others put us wrong it is possible that others can put us straight too.

In other words, the Bible/Tradition has nothing to offer regarding such rehabilitation other than to say that we are all heirs of a sort of natural disorder in one sphere of life or another. Some can be healed in this life, some cannot.

 

[StudentMI]

The teachings of the Doctors of the Church are not infallible.

So are you ever going to address Pope Benedict’s statements on what the Catechism does and does not say, or Pope Francis’ statement that the problem isn’t the inclination, or what Courage has said about homosexuality, or are we just supposed to believe you have read the Bible and Catechism correctly?

 

[SMGS127]

No they aren’t according to my research. This has been discussed on this forum previously. Look it up yourself.

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it (the Council of Trent) decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals. . . . presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

– Decrees of the Council of Trent

They most definitely carry infallibility on their interpretations of Scripture if unanimously consenting. Doctors do not, but Fathers absolutely do.

 

[Catolico65]

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it (the Council of Trent) decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals. . . . presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

– Decrees of the Council of Trent

They most definitely carry infallibility on their interpretations of Scripture if unanimously consenting. Doctors do not, but Fathers absolutely do.

Please show where there is unanimous consent of the Fathers for the topics that were proposed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

(1) The Church actually has no definitive teaching I am aware of as to whether or not Adam and Eve actually had sex before being kicked out of the Garden.

That being the case, would it not be best to default to the teachings of the Doctors of the Church on the matter?

Regardless, there is absolutely no reason why they could not have. Afterall they were commanded by God, immediately after creation, to go forth and multiply - he didn’t put any restrictions on when/where.

But see the quotation I posed from St. John of Damascus (a Doctor of the Church), who teaches that this verse is not to be interpreted as meaning that Adam and Eve were meant to have sexual relations, but only that they would have multiplied in some other manner by the Power of God.

In fact the Church has never denied, as far as I am aware, the possibility that Adam and Eve could have already actually have had children before their Fall. Obviously no-one knows for sure.

No father has even denied this possibility, as far as I am aware. Instead, they mostly asserted that the reproduction would be brought about in a different manner.

(2) If you read Genesis carefully you will see that birth-pangs were “greatly increased” by the Fall. Which means they existed prelapsarian.

Yet the Fathers did not interpret the Genesis account in such a manner. Why should I believe this interpretation over the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom who teaches explicitly that birth pains are not natural to man? Indeed, most of the Fathers I am familiar with were of the opinion that pain was not even natural to prelapsarian man, much less birth pains.

(4) Many of the early Church Fathers (including Augustine in places) had an abberant (Greek philosophy) understanding of the place of sexuality in the life of grace. It was a widespread blindness of their Age that few escaped. They therefore concluded that reproduction was somehow magical/spiritual to the extent that penile penetration was not required and that Eve would have remained a virgin (even after birth) - ie hymen intact. These physical conclusions based on valid theological conundrums were ultimately rejected by the Church Universal over time. You can still see echoes of it in some ancient Eastern traditions concerning Mary. You will also note that Church Catechisms of recent times have delicately removed themselves from the once very physically explicit utterances of Mary as Virgin before/during/after childbirth (ie hymen intact).

How can one simply abolish something which was once the common teaching of the Fathers? Even if modern catechisms have taken emphasis away from such a teaching (that is, neglecting to mention that the Virgin’s hymen was held to have been unbroken by giving birth), does that automatically mean that the teaching has been abolished?

In fact if you want to accept these very physical interpretations you must also accept that Jesus did not pass down the birth canal when he was born (hence Mary allegedly had no labour pains whatsoever) but “exited the womb as he did the tomb”. This sub-tradition from the East has nver been formally defined by the Church as far as I know. All we must accept is that Mary remained a virgin (knowing no man) all or life.

I have no problem believing this “sub-tradition” because it was to my knowledge part of the common mind of the Fathers. It is even reflected in a hymn sung during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which affirms that the Virgin gave birth ἀδιάφθορος (‘without corruption’).

(5) If sexual faculty was perfectly ordered/controlled by the soul then it would have been heterosexual - because sex, created for both unitive and procreative purposes, was clearly meant to be between one man and one woman.

That is assuming that sexual reproduction is not a product of the fall, against the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of Damascus and others.

In other words, the Bible/Tradition has nothing to offer regarding such rehabilitation other than to say that we are all heirs of a sort of natural disorder in one sphere of life or another. Some can be healed in this life, some cannot.

I would argue that the Tradition has much to offer, because the Tradition already has a solution available to those who harbor deep homosexual tendencies, that solution being celibacy, not reparative therapies which are untraditional and not tested as a calling to holiness by generations of Christian life.

 

[Cavaradossi]

St Augustine says sexual pleasure existed in Paradise, ie before the fall, in “Contra Julianum”

In his later years, as I mentioned, yes, St. Augustine, responding to criticisms by Julian of Eclanum, was open to the idea that Adam and Eve could have experienced sexual intercourse in the Garden (contrary to his earlier musings on the topic), but he explicitly continued to teach that sexual appetite was a product of the fall.

Pope St. Gregory the Great (another Doctor of the Church) also taught similarly that sexual appetite was a product of the fall, being, “the punishment for sin.” (In septum psalmos poenitentiales expositio, Ps 4:7)

Again, I ask, if so many fathers and doctors taught that sexual desire was a product of the fall, why should it be desirable that reparative therapies (which far from being rooted in patristic anthropology normally take it for granted that sexual desire is natural to humankind) be used, when the Church already has a venerable tradition of celibacy which has been proved by over a millennium of experience to be a reliable pathway to a holy life, and which is rooted in a correct patristic understanding of anthropology?

 

[Catolico65]

In his later years, as I mentioned, yes, St. Augustine, responding to criticisms by Julian of Eclanum, was open to the idea that Adam and Eve could have experienced sexual intercourse in the Garden (contrary to his earlier musings on the topic), but he explicitly continued to teach that sexual appetite was a product of the fall.

Pope St. Gregory the Great (another Doctor of the Church) also taught similarly that sexual appetite was a product of the fall, being, “the punishment for sin.” (In septum psalmos poenitentiales expositio, Ps 4:7)

Again, I ask, if so many fathers and doctors taught that sexual desire was a product of the fall, why should it be desirable that reparative therapies (which far from being rooted in patristic anthropology normally take it for granted that sexual desire is natural to humankind) be used, when the Church already has a venerable tradition of celibacy which has been proved by over a millennium of experience to be a reliable pathway to a holy life, and which is rooted in a correct patristic understanding of anthropology?

With all due respect you have failed to show unanimous consent among the Fathers regarding this topic so your opinion is duly noted.

I also think you should be aware that supporting celibacy as the only solution to SSA on the assumption that SSA is innate enables the gay lobby to convert many people to their cause, thus causing many to suffer needlessly, especially youths. Based on Jesus’ warning all Catholics should refrain from that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

With all due respect you have failed to show unanimous consent among the Fathers regarding this topic so your opinion is duly noted.

Which father taught that sexual desire was present before the fall?

And even if one or two happened to teach such a thing, given that so many Fathers and Doctors (I have here quoted four Doctors already, two from the East and two from the West in support of the position that there was no sexual desire before the fall), taught the opposite, should we not err on the side of caution, and recommend that those with homosexual passions find solace in a method tested by history and which has been shown to be conductive to leading a holy life (celibacy), rather than recommending a method which has not been tested by over a millennium of Christian saints and ascetics?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

With all due respect you have failed to show unanimous consent among the Fathers regarding this topic so your opinion is duly noted.

I also think you should be aware that supporting celibacy as the only solution to SSA on the assumption that SSA is innate enables the gay lobby to convert many people to their cause, thus causing many to suffer needlessly, especially youths. Based on Jesus’ warning all Catholics should refrain from that.

Unanimous consent does not dictate that all must have voted in favor, merely that no one voted against. Actually given that several Fathers have been cited in favor of sexual attraction being alien to the garden of Eden, it actually falls to you to prove that one of the Fathers, any of the Fathers disagreed.

In 2009 Jones and Yarhouse presented the final results of their 10-year study, “Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation” [pdf] at the American Psychological Association’s annual conference. In their study, based on long-term follow-up with participants in Exodus ministries, they found that 23% of the participants claimed to have experienced “substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning” (p. 7). Jones and Yarhouse note, however, that
while we found that part of our research population experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) “conversion,” our evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated, dichotomous and unequivocal reversal of sexual orientation from utterly homosexual to utterly heterosexual. Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at T6 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and they did not report their heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated. (p. 10).

source

I actually agree that we shouldn’t force they into celibacy, but we’ve got to be honest, those feelings aren’t actually likely to go away.

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it (the Council of Trent) decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals. . . . presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

– Decrees of the Council of Trent

They most definitely carry infallibility on their interpretations of Scripture if unanimously consenting. Doctors do not, but Fathers absolutely do.

Thank you, I’ll see about track material down so I can reread the Council of Trent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That being the case, would it not be best to default to the teachings of the Doctors of the Church on the matter?

I would suggest that if the Church has no formal teaching on this point then that suggests it is not a matter which, either way, impugns existing Dogma.
It also suggests that the total unanimity you believe you see amongst the Doctors may not exist or, if there it is a unanimity of opinion only. True doctrine is not finally decided by the a greater number of Fathers (or even Doctors for that matter) holding to one sub-tradition, and a smaller group to an opposing sub-tradition. The Church is not a democracy, it is the Magisterium which finally decies - if that is even necessary. Even now the Church has a diversity of legitimate opinion regarding a number of “traditional” doctrines and the minority opinions are just as acceptable. The Magisterium usually “lets things theologically cook” over time and sees where consensus goes. Not that it is always driven by majority consensus.

But see the quotation I posed from St. John of Damascus (a Doctor of the Church), who teaches that this verse is not to be interpreted as meaning that Adam and Eve were meant to have sexual relations, but only that they would have multiplied in some other manner by the Power of God.

One Doctor does not a Dogma make. Every Age has its characteristic theological blindspots that may well be denied by Doctors of a later Age or even by the Magisterium itself.

No father has even denied this possibility, as far as I am aware.

Agreed, of course mainstream opinion obviously holds they did not have children before the Fall.

Why should I believe this interpretation over the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom who teaches explicitly that birth pains are not natural to man?

Because JC wasn’t there and it denies a plain reading of Scripture and many Fathers are silent on the matter and later Doctors are not at all agreed on this point AND the Magisterium has not taken a formal theological side on this inconsequential physical matter as far as I know. So you are entitled to your view, and others to the contrary.

How can one simply abolish something which was once the common teaching of the Fathers?

See above wrt mere opinion, silence not being consent, and “unanimity of doctrine” being in the rosy-eye of the beholder on this point.

Even if modern catechisms have taken emphasis away from such a teaching (that is, neglecting to mention that the Virgin’s hymen was held to have been unbroken by giving birth), does that automatically mean that the teaching has been abolished?

No. Such distancing suggests “the teaching” was never a unified teaching over the whole course of the preeding 2000 years but merely a sub-tradition. You may or may not choose to believe Jesus was never properly born. I think that (Greek) neo-platonic sub-tradition has serious problems wrt Jesus as fully Man. But I must respect that the Church, presently, still tolerates that strange sub-tradition.

I have no problem believing this “sub-tradition” because it was to my knowledge part of the common mind of the Fathers. It is even reflected in a hymn sung during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which affirms that the Virgin gave birth ἀδιάφθορος (‘without corruption’).

Yes, liturgy can be a strong (though not absolute) indicator of true doctrine. As above, I accept this overly physical teaching was, at the time, seen as intrinsically necessary to uphold the true doctrine that Mary all her life knew no man.
Few today really see the necessity of a physically intact hymen wrt upholding that dogma anymore. The two may be separated without the more basic dogma failing. The Church tolerates both views on the matter.

That is assuming that sexual reproduction is not a product of the fall, against the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of Damascus and others.

Well they were wrong according to Augustine and Aquinas and many later theologians so stalemate if not checkmate there sorry. It is concupiscence (loss of control of the soul over the body) that is a product of the Fall, not sex itself. Sex before the Fall would have been far better than now.

I am not going to debate this further with you as, unlike yourself, I have no real axe to grind. This is simply the result of much research I have done on these matter over many years. Take it or leave it - or better still, do the research yourself with an open mind.

 

[Catolico65]

Which father taught that sexual desire was present before the fall?

And even if one or two happened to teach such a thing, given that so many Fathers and Doctors (I have here quoted four Doctors already, two from the East and two from the West in support of the position that there was no sexual desire before the fall), taught the opposite, should we not err on the side of caution, and recommend that those with homosexual passions find solace in a method tested by history and which has been shown to be conductive to leading a holy life (celibacy), rather than recommending a method which has not been tested by over a millennium of Christian saints and ascetics?

With all due respect Augustine wrote there was sexual desire before the fall. The Bible also alludes to this as well.

The argument that sexual desire came after the fall would imply and infer that all sexual desires are disordered, which is not justified by Scripture nor much less established Church dogma. Furthermore, since this false argument gives credibility to the theory that homosexuality is innate to some people’s condition this argument obviously should be discarded based on Scripture and CC dogma.

The reality, whether you are able to acknowledge it or not, is that the theory that homosexuality is innate is right out of the gay lobby’s playbook on page #1. They use this flawed and baseless theory and simple logic to convert millions to there cause. It is based on the definition of sin, I recommend you research that in order that you understand what you are proposing. Paz.

 

[Catolico65]

Unanimous consent does not dictate that all must have voted in favor, merely that no one voted against. Actually given that several Fathers have been cited in favor of sexual attraction being alien to the garden of Eden, it actually falls to you to prove that one of the Fathers, any of the Fathers disagreed.

That is false logic.

Also, constantly proposing theories without being properly vetted can only undermine your appearance of objectivity.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

That is false logic.

Also, constantly proposing theories without being properly vetted can only undermine your appearance of objectivity.

The definition of unanimous consent rests upon no opposition.

For you to demand Cavaradossi prove unanimous consent is asking him to prove a negative.

Augustine speculated of reproduction being possible in the Garden of Eden, not that sexual desire existed, People can engage in sex without sexual desire, women do it all the time and men with zero interest in women sexually have managed to impregnate them.

 

[Catolico65]

The definition of unanimous consent rests upon no opposition.

For you to demand Cavaradossi prove unanimous consent is asking him to prove a negative.

Augustine speculated of reproduction being possible in the Garden of Eden, not that sexual desire existed, People can engage in sex without sexual desire, women do it all the time and men with zero interest in women sexually have managed to impregnate them.

Your statement is just more false logic. Repetition of a claim does not make it valid, sorry.

I think we should be careful of using doubt as a tool of argument, given the author of said.