Hate the sin, love the sinner?

[Farien]

I don’t find homosexuality ‘disgusting’ any more than I find heterosexual adultery or pre-marital sex disgusting. And few people I know would say that they do find it ‘disgusting’.

I do find it concernig for all the same reasons that I am concerned by the others.

As I said before, as long as you keep your opinion private, no one gets hurts, so your negative view is only your own. There is no probem. Though I wonder if the word “disgusting” is the correct one? After all it conveys a “physical revulsion”, not just a “disapproval”. The word “concerning” is much better.

‘Live and let live’ doesn’t wash at times. Let me give you an example. You find out your best friend is cheating on his or her spouse. It is something they do in private that does not directly harm you - or does it?

It is incorrect to narrow down the harm to a specific person.

Is there no harm to you in the fact that your friend is the sort of character who ignores his or her marital vows? Who therefore cannot be trusted to keep even the most solemn and sacred promise when it is inconvenient to them? Is there no harm in bing around someone who is unreliable when it comes down to it?

So yes even ‘victimless’ wrongs can do damage to people other than the participants.

That is a bad example. Cheating is a break of trust, it is a break of contract, it is a break of one’s word, so it is not a “victimless” act. On the other hand, if the original agreement between the couple would be an open marriage, where having outside sexual relationship is NOT infidelity, then there is no problem.

 

[Farien]

I’m not sure. Very few people comment on it, but some do. I’ve assumed they intend something constructive, but on those rare occasions when it happens I try to escape the conversation or wait it out in a passive manner, so something constructive is very unlikely to happen. You are right, though, that “time wasting” has been mentioned.

You are wise not to comment on it. The mentioning of “wasted time” was really “wasted” - on their part. How can anyone dare to assume the authority to declare how should you spend your time?

I agree with you that if the words are going to be unhelpful to the person, don’t speak them. Our duty is not one of speaking, but one of service and charity.

It is good to have agreement. Thank you.

People choose to be what they choose to be and that is who comes out of the house to interact with others, causing an effect.

Undeniable. But that pertains to everything. Even if I say something like “have a wonderful day” does have an effect.

So that part of your point I disagree with, but that is off your main topic. I do agree with you about only behaving in helpful ways towards other people.

Excellent. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[TarkanAttila]

one’s word, so it is not a “victimless” act. On the other hand, if the original agreement between the couple would be an open marriage, where having outside sexual relationship is NOT infidelity, then there is no problem.

I will give you a better one, then.

How about… contraception? That’s essentially the same thing. The difference simply is it involves two people of opposite sexes rather than the same sex.

But it does purposefully bar the procreative act to conception, reducing the two involved people into objects for their own pleasure, enjoyment, and an understood-yet-misguided false “love” for each other. However, as perhaps you’ve heard among Catholics before, sex is supposed to be a complete self-giving, whether it produces children or no. And what a harsh though subtle signal it sends to a woman to put on a condom - to effectively say “I don’t want to give you my totality”. What a subtle signal a woman sends to the man in accepting his condom - effectively saying “fine; I never really wanted you wholly and entirely anyway”.

Or perhaps a woman on “The Pill” would be a better example, for like the homosexual couple, the sperm or other juices are not blocked, but rather enter the body, only to go to waste. It’s like sending an train filled with money into a foreign country, only to have it abandoned at the platform and left to rot 'til it is of no value at all. It’s one thing if there’s simply no one at the station at the time. It’s entirely another if you kill the porters waiting at the station, or send it to a place where there never was a station to begin with.

If sex is ordered to not only pleasure but also procreation - as trains are ordered not only to making people happier but also making people richer - then contraception, as much as sodomy or sapphism, or adultery, or incest, or masturbation, or prostitution, or any other such thing is indeed, objectively against reason and against human nature.

 

[Farien]

But it does purposefully bar the procreative act to conception, reducing the two involved people into objects for their own pleasure, enjoyment, and an understood-yet-misguided false “love” for each other.

That is merely your opinion. “Misguided, false love”? How can you declare what is “false” love? What gives you the authority?

If a couple is not “open” to procreation - for whatever reason! - it is their own business. It could be that they do not wish to procreate at all, or it could be that they do not wish to procreate at that particular time. It does not “reduce” them to objects, on the very contrary, it emphasizes the mutual love and caring, by concentrating on the partner’s pleasure, and taking turns to give and receive as much pleasure as possible. They do give themselves to their partner fully, without the worry of an unwanted event of conception. If they would have to worry about an unwanted conception, then they would not be able to participate in the act as selflessly as they can.

However, as perhaps you’ve heard among Catholics before, sex is supposed to be a complete self-giving, whether it produces children or no.

I am not going to make a negative judgment about the catholic view, since I am not qualified to make decisions for them. Whatever they consider proper for themselves, it is their business, and no one should interfere with them. The only courtesy I would appreciate is the reversal of this permissive attitude. However, it is unlikely to happen.

And what a harsh though subtle signal it sends to a woman to put on a condom - to effectively say “I don’t want to give you my totality”. What a subtle signal a woman sends to the man in accepting his condom - effectively saying “fine; I never really wanted you wholly and entirely anyway”.

You have it “upside down”. They simply wish to enjoy each other, without the worry of an unwanted pregnancy. And you might know that not all people wish to procreate at every time they want to have fun. That is basic human nature. The message is: “we decided to have fun and do not wish to rish pregnancy. Therefore I will wear this condom to make sure that I do not put you into jeopardy”. That is the correct message.

If sex is ordered to not only pleasure but also procreation

The starting “IF” is a big word. Not even all christians accept it, and not even all catholics accept that premise.

…then contraception, as much as sodomy or sapphism, or adultery, or incest, or masturbation, or prostitution, or any other such thing is indeed, objectively against reason and against human nature.

Strange that with the exception of a few die-hard, ultra-orthodox catholics the whole humanity accepts that “misguided, false love” - which involves mutual caring, mutual pleasure is the “real McCoy - the real love”, even if it excludes conception whenever it is undesirable.

 

[jimmy]

Have you ever considered how does that sound to those “sinners”? When you speak of homosexual practices, the words like “disgusting”, “perverted”, “unnatural”, “hateful” and alike are abundant. People and their actions cannot be artifically separated. When you express your “disgust” toward what they do, that obviously “spills over” and you express your disgust toward them. So, do not be surprised if they see that your “love” toward them is just an empty word, and what you say about them is anything but “charitavle”, and “kind”. Something to think about?

It sounds like people have no shame. They expect their vices to be treated like virtues. And you have basically asserted that the way someone feels should determine whether something is viewed as right or wrong.

 

[fix]

It sounds like people have no shame. They expect their vices to be treated like virtues. And you have basically asserted that the way someone feels should determine whether something is viewed as right or wrong.

Perfect summation.

 

[benjammin]

So just wondering in response to the OP’s question how do we show love without sounding hateful. Oftentimes people say this, but really don’t do things out of love, or it is just a way to justify hate. I kind of compare it to jack chick reading fundies who say they “love” Roman Catholics, yet they show their love by spreading lies and saying hateful things. Even typical evangelicals show anti-catholic vids to catholics out of “love”. I think this is where we shouldn’t just trash their actions (unfortunately a lot of people think their actions are a part of them and don’t seperate it. I know i’m the type of person who takes criticism personally and I think a lot of people are like this now a days especially young people) We need to show them there is a better way. Rather than saying “Gay sex is disgusting” invite them to mass and bible studies. Have them meet couples who are happily married and together, or have them meet a priest or consecrated person who lives in celibacy to show them its possible if they are really of same sex orientation. I think we need to bring these people in by offering more to them, not just saying their actions are disgusting. Sadly a lot of them take it personally.

 

[Farien]

It sounds like people have no shame.

Why would anyone be ashamed for expressing their love?

They expect their vices to be treated like virtues.

Last time I heard, love was not a “vice”.

And you have basically asserted that the way someone feels should determine whether something is viewed as right or wrong.

No, that is not what I said, or meant. Whatever they feel is irrelevant. Likewise, whatever you feel is also irrelevant. What matters is that love and its expression is objectively good, no matter what people think.

 

[Farien]

So just wondering in response to the OP’s question how do we show love without sounding hateful. Oftentimes people say this, but really don’t do things out of love, or it is just a way to justify hate. I kind of compare it to jack chick reading fundies who say they “love” Roman Catholics, yet they show their love by spreading lies and saying hateful things. Even typical evangelicals show anti-catholic vids to catholics out of “love”. I think this is where we shouldn’t just trash their actions (unfortunately a lot of people think their actions are a part of them and don’t seperate it. I know i’m the type of person who takes criticism personally and I think a lot of people are like this now a days especially young people) We need to show them there is a better way. Rather than saying “Gay sex is disgusting” invite them to mass and bible studies. Have them meet couples who are happily married and together, or have them meet a priest or consecrated person who lives in celibacy to show them its possible if they are really of same sex orientation. I think we need to bring these people in by offering more to them, not just saying their actions are disgusting. Sadly a lot of them take it personally.

Sounds like a much better solution.

 

[TarkanAttila]

That is merely your opinion. “Misguided, false love”? How can you declare what is “false” love? What gives you the authority?

Plain fact. My friend, what does a man produce when he orgasms? Is it not part of the product of conception? Orgasm is intrinsically ordered towards procreation AND pleasure both. To block it is to block a healthy function of the body.

If a couple is not “open” to procreation - for whatever reason! - it is their own business. …If they would have to worry about an unwanted conception, then they would not be able to participate in the act as selflessly as they can.

I agree it is certainly not my business to dictate to a couple when or where they should have children. That’s not what I am asking for at all, nor is it what the Catholic Church is. But the fact is sex is ordered towards creating children. If you don’t want children, there is a very simple solution: don’t start the process for creating them. If you also want pleasure, there’s thousands of other ways to gain pleasure without risking pregnancy. Food, drink, tobacco, dancing, playing a game… weed…

The man gives his sperm to the woman in proper intercourse. It changes her chemically - and not just in the conception of life. That is an obvious benefit of sex. But if the sperm enters her, woman is affected in many good and beneficial ways. For one thing, sperm is an antidepressant. It works to prevent breast cancer, and increases libido. It makes sex more enjoyable. And the more of it a woman receives, the less likely it is that her antibodies will attack them and the more likely it is she’ll conceive.

A condom-covered orgasm is like Wonder Bread: it robs more than it gives back. Sure, it staves off an inconvenient pregnancy. But you lose all those other benefits.

I am not going to make a negative judgment about the catholic view, since I am not qualified to make decisions for them. Whatever they consider proper for themselves, it is their business, and no one should interfere with them. The only courtesy I would appreciate is the reversal of this permissive attitude. However, it is unlikely to happen.

Friend, could you tell me this: if I said I believed that nitroglycerine was only as explosive as water - and I was supposed to handle this volatile substance on a daily basis - would you or wouldn’t you try to convince me to the contrary?

Morally speaking, the Catholic Church is trying to keep you - and whatever unfortunate people or buildings might be around you - from exploding and leaving a ghastly mess. Just as scientific truth isn’t relative to whatever you like to believe, morality - which is based partially in scientific truth - is not relative, either.

There is so much biological evidence that human sexuality was geared towards lifelong, fruitful unity between a man and a woman - what we Catholics call a marriage. We’re just rehashing what nature, and of course God Himself, have told us.

You have it “upside down”. They simply wish to enjoy each other, without the worry of an unwanted pregnancy. And you might know that not all people wish to procreate at every time they want to have fun. That is basic human nature.

I concede that. That is why they have natural infertile periods in which it is conducive to a marriage to have sex. There is no problem making use of these.

The message is: “we decided to have fun and do not wish to rish pregnancy. Therefore I will wear this condom to make sure that I do not put you into jeopardy”. That is the correct message.

“Risk pregnancy”… hmmm… somehow that seems wrong.

It seems wrong to say that the creation of a new human life - which, by definition of those two words, a human zygote is - is “putting someone into jeopardy”. That is akin to saying it is a disease, like cancer.

I will admit, sometimes it is not convenient - or expedient - for a woman to conceive. But, again, the answer to that is not to put her at the risk for that in the first place. You do that whenever you have sex, whether it’s with or without a condom, with or without a Pill. You are acting very selfishly, both of you, by putting her at risk, and by (as the Pill is apt to do) killing or mutating a conceived human life thanks to the contraception.

The starting “IF” is a big word. Not even all christians accept it, and not even all catholics accept that premise.

From what I’ve seen in the science of it, even if every Christian clamoured against the idea that sex was made for making babies, it wouldn’t make it untrue. There is too much objective, natural, scientific backing in the scenario, the results, and the materials for this idea to be false.

Strange that with the exception of a few die-hard, ultra-orthodox catholics

And the Catholic Church itself

the whole humanity accepts that “misguided, false love” - which involves mutual caring, mutual pleasure is the “real McCoy - the real love”, even if it excludes conception whenever it is undesirable.

The whole of humanity plagued by modern, secular Western thought, perhaps. You have not lived in a world without the condom or the contraceptive pill. Before now, and outside of here, large families are not only the norm, they are a desirable norm. Contraception really was a laughable idea, because you depended on your children when they were old enough to work. Why would you limit the free farmhands or breadwinners in your household?

History laughs at modernism, and it laughs at contraception.

 

[Farien]

Plain fact. My friend, what does a man produce when he orgasms? Is it not part of the product of conception? Orgasm is intrinsically ordered towards procreation AND pleasure both. To block it is to block a healthy function of the body.

Orgasm is not "blocked’. Let’s just consider: during a lifetime most people engage in many thousands of sexual acts. How many procreations happen? A few, on the average a little over 2. So to say that every sexual act must be open to procreation is naive. People who cannot procreate (for some medical reason) still engage in the activity, partly because it feels good, and partly because they love their partner - and thus procreation can be simply left out from the “equation”. It is simply not important.

But the fact is sex is ordered towards creating children. If you don’t want children, there is a very simple solution: don’t start the process for creating them.

There is nothing “ordered”. And since it is fun, and does not hurt anyone, it stands to reason to engage in it whenever the partners so desire. If someone wishes to abstain, that is their business. Just like the people do not wish to abstain, that is their business. But I would like to direct your attention to one peculiar fact. Of all the sexual activities, there is only one, which never happens outside humanity, which is therefore truly “unnatural”… can you guess what it might be?

Friend, could you tell me this: if I said I believed that nitroglycerine was only as explosive as water - and I was supposed to handle this volatile substance on a daily basis - would you or wouldn’t you try to convince me to the contrary?

Certainly, I would try to convince you - once. I would prepare an experiment to show you the actual effects of nitroglycerine - and you could see it with your own eyes just what the effect is. Now, if you still decline to listen, that will be your decision, and I will leave you alone.

Morally speaking, the Catholic Church is trying to keep you - and whatever unfortunate people or buildings might be around you - from exploding and leaving a ghastly mess.

That is very commendable. As soon as a demonstration is ready, I will be happy to watch it. But words are insufficient. If you happen to remember the old commercial: “Where is the meat?”.

And the Catholic Church itself

Sure. So what?

“Risk pregnancy”… hmmm… somehow that seems wrong.

It seems wrong to say that the creation of a new human life - which, by definition of those two words, a human zygote is - is “putting someone into jeopardy”. That is akin to saying it is a disease, like cancer.

It is certainly not the “normal” state of affairs. And if she does not wish to procreate, her wish must be respected. It is a fact that most people only wish to procreate once or maybe twice in their lifetime. To say that they should abstain when they are not inclined to procreate is rather ridiculous. And don’t bring up NFP. It is just a different kind of “prevention”.

 

[jimmy]

No, that is not what I said, or meant. Whatever they feel is irrelevant. Likewise, whatever you feel is also irrelevant. What matters is that love and its expression is objectively good, no matter what people think.

You implied that when you asked about their feelings. But let’s talk about your post here. You say they are expressing their love, but how do we define love? Is it an emotion, or is it an action? I would assert that there is a difference in definition between you and the cc.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Orgasm is not "blocked’.

No, but ejaculation is. And you know very well where that ejaculate is supposed to go.

Let’s just consider: during a lifetime most people engage in many thousands of sexual acts. How many procreations happen? A few, on the average a little over 2.

In the natural course of things, before contraception became popular, it used to be significantly more than that. But go ahead.

So to say that every sexual act must be open to procreation is naive.

Oh, really? And why, then, do you want contraception so badly, if by sex we produce so few children?

Maybe the sperm doesn’t always come in contact with an egg. Maybe a bullet doesn’t always come in contact with flesh. But you sure can still be arrested for attempted murder if you shoot at someone, even if you only graze a man’s shoulder once. Similarly, you know the risks of having sex. When a man and a woman have sex at any time under any circumstances, they both are, for lack of a better term, responsible for trying to bring a child into the world, even if they don’t succeed. Anyway about it, it is certainly never impossible to produce children by it - assuming we’re talking about a fertile man and a fertile woman…

People who cannot procreate (for some medical reason) still engage in the activity, partly because it feels good, and partly because they love their partner - and thus procreation can be simply left out from the “equation”. It is simply not important.

…and not the case you’ve described just here.

Now, I feel like I’ve been through this argument - along with everyone else here - a thousand times. This is an old, bad argument. But here’s once more just for you:

1. Infertility is a disease. It is the malfunctioning of some part or parts of an otherwise normally functioning body, and for the total health of a person ought to be treated, if possible, if we assume that health is a good and desirable thing. You would agree health is good and desirable, no?
   1a) Therefore, the Pill, and most contraceptive devices, are counterproductive to the aim of health, for they take a healthily functioning part of the body and disable it - or make it sick.
2. In the case of a hysterectomy, which cannot be reversed, and sometimes is inevitable, the question comes down to, as with every moral question, intention. As noted above, the Pill takes a healthy body and makes it sick. A woman who continues to have sex with her husband after a hysterectomy may either have had the surgery to save her life, or to deaden her sexual organs. In the former case, she didn’t intend to lose her fertility. In the latter, she did. She would be wrong in the latter, and (assuming they hadn’t been and never would dare use contraception) just in the former.

There is nothing “ordered”. And since it is fun, and does not hurt anyone,

Can I get an adultery, STDs, sexual addiction, abortions, single motherhood, child abuse, domestic abuse, or anything else from any-bo-DAY?

 

[TarkanAttila]

If someone wishes to abstain, that is their business. Just like the people do not wish to abstain, that is their business. But I would like to direct your attention to one peculiar fact. Of all the sexual activities, there is only one, which never happens outside humanity, which is therefore truly “unnatural”… can you guess what it might be?

I’ll shoot: male genital to anal contact - which happens for reasons far outside of the pure pleasure reason you’d like to establish for legitimising sodomy and sapphism. Namely it’s used for “pecking order”, to use a turn of phrase. To establish dominance. “This is my territory, and you’d better respect that.” That sort of thing.

But no animal - including human beings rightly ordered on the issue of human sexuality - ever uses their sexual organs or coitus purely for pleasure, whether between male and female, or two of the same sex.

Only some humans, whom are capable of choosing to become objectively disordered (that is, not following right reason) because, frankly, it has an emotional or other irrational appeal to it, defy this idea that sexuality is for more than pleasure.

Certainly, I would try to convince you - once. I would prepare an experiment to show you the actual effects of nitroglycerine - and you could see it with your own eyes just what the effect is. Now, if you still decline to listen, that will be your decision, and I will leave you alone.

Right. You know what I would do if I met someone like that? I would tell his supervisor, “Are you crazy?! Fire this idiot, or he will end up killing people!” I might even call the police on such a wreckless threat to the bodily and structural integrity of his surroundings.

It used to be common knowledge that fornication and its cousin sexual sins - incest, sodomy, bestiality, polygamy, masturbation (of which I admit full guilt, and I do mean guilt) and other sins - were as detrimental to the structure and integrity of a person as a jar of nitroglycerine is to the structure and integrity of a body. But, as it is no longer common sense, people are getting hurt by their lack of rational thought. Not only with the aforementioned plagues of sexually transmitted diseases and abuse, but also with genuine emotional pains, deprivations, losses, emptinesses, as well as the decline in a working-age population needed to sustain the human race, and particularly our ever-ageing population. Europe will be in population decline by 2050. Japan is already there.

That is very commendable. As soon as a demonstration is ready, I will be happy to watch it. But words are insufficient. If you happen to remember the old commercial: “Where is the meat?”.

That you can’t deduce what might possibly be the common thread between so many societal ills - divorce, abortion, single motherhood, impoverished single motherhood, domestic abuse, child abuse, child neglect, and even murder in a few cases, concerns me. Do you not notice that they’re all wrapped up in the question of what a few loosely thrown around chemicals - oxytocin, for example, which binds two people together chemically who may have absolutely nothing else of value to share with each other - can do?

For without the sex which emotionally and chemically bonded them, there would be no lasting or significant relationship between two people who later end up having children they didn’t want, catching diseases they didn’t need, feeling the need to stay with a person they really and truly don’t like, and ending up in situations that could have been averted if they had kept their pants on.

It’s probably not the only cause. But it would be baseless to deny that all of these problems - and more - have at least some connection to the fact that we don’t keep our pants on until we’re willing to commit our lives to one person for life.

Sure. So what?

So don’t try to make official church teaching look like a fringe movement by “a few die-hard, ultra-orthodox catholics”. It’s the official teaching of the Church, which all 1 billion of us are supposed to follow. That’s what.

It is certainly not the “normal” state of affairs.

No, I suppose it is not. Then again, is it a disease, or a normal function of a woman’s body? Based on the way our biology - and indeed the biology of all eukaryotes - works, I’d opt to say it’s a normal function of the female, and not a disease.

And if she does not wish to procreate, her wish must be respected.

I absolutely agree. Which is why I will not have sex with a woman at all if she doesn’t want to risk having children.

It is a fact that most people only wish to procreate once or maybe twice in their lifetime.

To recoil around to the beginning of this reply, before the modern era this was not so. Now, why do you think this might be - that 2000 years ago large families were a blessing, and now they are a curse in secular, individualist, self-serving modern society?

 

[Farien]

You implied that when you asked about their feelings. But let’s talk about your post here. You say they are expressing their love, but how do we define love? Is it an emotion, or is it an action? I would assert that there is a difference in definition between you and the cc.

Very good question. In the given circumstances it had better be “both”. Emotion without expressing it in action is just an internal state of mind - invisible and unknowable. Now the action I am talking about is far more than just the sexal act (though for most people it is an important part). It involves the same thing for any couple (whatever their gender might be), namely caring, being there in trouble - as the wedding wows say: “for better or for worse”. The part “until death do us part” is nice to have, but it does not happen all the time. And I would like to emphasize: it is the action that matters, not the words at the wedding ceremony. The words without the actions are null and void, the actions without the words are still everything.

Let’s face reality, sometimes people make a bad decision, and then they face only three options (according to catholicism) : to be locked in that unfortunate relationship for life, or get separated and face a “sexless” life. The third option is annullment, but it is very rare, and only granted in certain circumstances. It is totally unrealistic to demand that people should become celibate for the rest of their life. If someone has a good reason to do it, more power to them. It is no one else’s business to interfere or to criticize them.

The word “love” involves a wide range of emotions and actions. When one loves good food, it is not the same when one loves a pet, or loves one’s parents or one’s friends - or maybe a good, mutually respectful conversation (like this one). Yes, there is one specific type of action, called “agape”, which does not involve any emotion. So mostly, emotion and action are both part of the picture.

Let me add: I am not taking about acceptance of a behavior you don’t like. I only talk about mutual respect, and keeping your negative assessment private.

 

[Farien]

No, but ejaculation is. And you know very well where that ejaculate is supposed to go.

Ejaculation is not blocked either. And it is not “supposed” to go to any specific place. Any place is “optional”.

In the natural course of things, before contraception became popular, it used to be significantly more than that.

Economic circumstances and high infant mortality were resonsible for that. Today, the productivity is extremely high - as a matter of fact the farmers in the US (about 6% of the US population) produce about half of the food in the whole world. So there is no need to have many children (many of whom died at a young age), and people - wisely - prefer few children, for whom they can truly care for. No wonder that in the underdeveloped world, where the productivity is low, and the economics is labor-intensive, people have more children. Not because they “want” or “cherish” more children, but because they need them for economical reasons, and besides, a very sizable percentage of those children will die prematurely.

In the Victorian era, there were many children, especially among the poor people, for this very reason. Children were put to work at the age of 6 or so. Many of them became chimney sweepers. What a horrible life those “children” had.

Oh, really? And why, then, do you want contraception so badly, if by sex we produce so few children?

People have been practising all sorts of preventive measures since the dawn of time. Now there are more reliable methods. The practice did not change, the reliablity increased. The so-called NFP method is just another attempt to prevent conception. The funny thing is that you say: “it is the intent what matters”, but when it comes to prevention, it suddenly changes, and now the method “matters” and not the intent.

Anyway about it, it is certainly never impossible to produce children by it - assuming we’re talking about a fertile man and a fertile woman…

I am quite sure that you can use your imagination and realize that there are ways and means to be 100% sure that there will be no conception.

Infertility is a disease.

Nope, it is a normal variation, it will reach everyone with age. To get old, and lose one’s fertility is not a “disease”. Even if it were, it does not deprive people from utilizing the “unitive” part. Procreation is simply optional. Love can and does exist without it.

 

[Farien]

I’ll shoot: male genital to anal contact…

You missed the shot. It is abstinence which is a fully human invention, no animal would voluntarily withhold from sex, as long as they are able to practice it, and there is a willing partner.

Right. You know what I would do if I met someone like that? I would tell his supervisor, “Are you crazy?! Fire this idiot, or he will end up killing people!” I might even call the police on such a wreckless threat to the bodily and structural integrity of his surroundings.

It only shows that your analogy was incorrect. Non-procreative sex - in any form - is harmless to everyone.

It used to be common knowledge that fornication and its cousin sexual sins - incest, sodomy, bestiality, polygamy, masturbation (of which I admit full guilt, and I do mean guilt) and other sins - were as detrimental to the structure and integrity of a person as a jar of nitroglycerine is to the structure and integrity of a body.

Not true, no matter how many times it is repeated. There was a relatively common opinion stating this (only in the catholic countries), but that was all. And that opinion was not shared by the majority of the people, who practised all those “aberrations” without any harm. As you are well aware, masturbation does not cause blindness, nor will it cause to grow hair on your palm. If you think that the moral “cesspool” is new, you are seriously mistaken. The behavior is admitted freely, that is the only difference. In other words, only the hypocrisy-index went down.

So don’t try to make official church teaching look like a fringe movement by “a few die-hard, ultra-orthodox catholics”. It’s the official teaching of the Church, which all 1 billion of us are supposed to follow.

You used those most important words: “supposed to follow”. But they are not followed. I keep seeing the “lamentation” that there is a trend of “liberalism” happening in the church, that there are too many “cafeteria catholics”. And so the percenatge of the ultra-orthodox members is in decline. I am not “trying to make” the teaching look anything. Your fellow - heretic? - catholics make it marginalized. And most people who are non-catholics would never follow those teachings either.

No, I suppose it is not. Then again, is it a disease, or a normal function of a woman’s body? Based on the way our biology - and indeed the biology of all eukaryotes - works, I’d opt to say it’s a normal function of the female, and not a disease.

Of course. It is perfectly normal, but that does not mean that it is supposed to be engaged in all the time!

I absolutely agree. Which is why I will not have sex with a woman at all if she doesn’t want to risk having children.

I do not criticize you for your decision. It is just that not everyone is in the same bed as you are - pun definitely intended.

I cannot emphasize it enough: “if your way is the best for you, no one should criticize you for being true to yourself. Your practice does not hurt anyone, so you should be free to do it.” Why cannot the dissenters be awarded the same courtesy?

To recoil around to the beginning of this reply, before the modern era this was not so. Now, why do you think this might be - that 2000 years ago large families were a blessing, and now they are a curse in secular, individualist, self-serving modern society?

Don’t exaggerate. To have children only when they are wanted, when the parents can properly care for them does not make them a “curse”. The senseless procreation, when the children were delivered without being able to raise them properly, when those children had only prospect - lifelong hard labor - that was the “un-loving” way. Yes, children were a “blessing” as free labor - just like you mentioned in one of your previous posts.

 

[livingwordunity]

Have you ever considered how does that sound to those “sinners”?

Have you considered that we Catholics admit that we are sinners, too? If we weren’t then we wouldn’t need Jesus to save us from our sins. That’s the whole point of Christianity. Christians are called to love the sinner but hate the sin because we know that when we sin we become a slave to it if it’s Mortal sin. And whomever dies in a state of Mortal sin will be lost for eternity in Hell. I don’t want that for myself, so I wouldn’t want it for anyone I love either. So loving my neighbor means that I want my neighbor to have a chance to make it to Heaven just as I hope for my eternal salvation. A long time ago before I was a Christian, someone warned me that the music I was listening to was evil. He was right, the music was straight up satanic. Today, I am very grateful for his warning to me because I now know how much spiritual danger I was in then. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can explain this better than I can, so I recommend it to you.

 

[Farien]

Have you considered that we Catholics admit that we are sinners, too? If we weren’t then we wouldn’t need Jesus to save us from our sins. That’s the whole point of Christianity. Christians are called to love the sinner but hate the sin because we know that when we sin we become a slave to it if it’s Mortal sin. And whomever dies in a state of Mortal sin will be lost for eternity in Hell. I don’t want that for myself, so I wouldn’t want it for anyone I love either. So loving my neighbor means that I want my neighbor to have a chance to make it to Heaven just as I hope for my eternal salvation. A long time ago before I was a Christian, someone warned me that the music I was listening to was evil. He was right, the music was straight up satanic. Today, I am very grateful for his warning to me because I now know how much spiritual danger I was in then. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can explain this better than I can, so I recommend it to you.

Ok, let’s accept your premise, that it is your love toward others which prompts you to give “warning” to them. That still does not justify the abundant examples where derogatory words and expressions are used to describe the behavior of those “sinners”. I was not questioning your noble intentions, but I did question the chosen ways and means of certain people. I don’t think that this professed “love” can justify the rudeness of those people. Does that make sense?

Now, on a slightly different note, suppose you approach someone with a gentle, loving way and warn them about the “danger” they are putting themselves into. Suppose that they ask for actual, direct evidence, which you are unable to supply. What will you do then? Keep on pestering them? Or shrug them off? Do you respect them that they can be trusted with decisions concerning themselves? Or do you treat them as untrustworthy and so try to take over the decisions and apply some kind of force?

It all boils down to mutual respect.

 

[livingwordunity]

Ok, let’s accept your premise, that it is your love toward others which prompts you to give “warning” to them. That still does not justify the abundant examples where derogatory words and expressions are used to describe the behavior of those “sinners”. I was not questioning your noble intentions, but I did question the chosen ways and means of certain people. I don’t think that this professed “love” can justify the rudeness of those people. Does that make sense?

Now, on a slightly different note, suppose you approach someone with a gentle, loving way and warn them about the “danger” they are putting themselves into. Suppose that they ask for actual, direct evidence, which you are unable to supply. What will you do then? Keep on pestering them? Or shrug them off? Do you respect them that they can be trusted with decisions concerning themselves? Or do you treat them as untrustworthy and so try to take over the decisions and apply some kind of force?

It all boils down to mutual respect.

The problem here is I’m trying to explain faith to an atheist. If you don’t believe in God then nothing about the faith is going to make sense to you since you reject the most basic premise of it all. It’s like trying to explain why calculus makes sense to someone who won’t accept the basic premise that addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are true. One has to crawl before they can walk and walk before they can run. As long as you don’t accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, then anything less than us denying that sin is sin will be unacceptable to you.