Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Rau]

It’s a sin to separate natural law’s procreative aspect/attribute from the marital act.
Therefore it should be a sin to separate natural law’s hearing for survival attribute from the listening act.

I don’t recall anybody arguing the sinfulness of non-procreative sexual acts on this thread.

Quite separately, but being no expert on natural law, are the things you nominate really relevant to natural law considerations? Could you provide some references that discuss these things in a natural law context?

 

[Rau]

It’s because of people who hold views like you that I don’t feel comfortable to associate with Catholics who hold the same view (although not all do), much less with people of most other religious denominations.

As I am not baptized, I am technically at the mercy of Catholics, which, when they hold views like you do, fills me with despair, and my prospects for obtaining a formal baptism diminish.

Which view of mine disturbs you?

 

[Rau]

Not for “survival.” At some point, I couldn’t work anymore, at least not as I had done that far, because working (or doing anything else) merely for the pursuit of food, shelter etc. struck me as an empty and worthless pursuit that might as well be omitted. I took to investigating religion precisely because I was looking for a good reason for working.

You work because that is usually necessary to continue in this life. You then give yourself an opportunity to use your life effectively.

 

[Lucy107]

Which view of mine disturbs you?

I’ve been talking about that all along, but you don’t seem to relate.

---

Stop blaming others for you woes.

How am I blaming others for my woes?
The simple fact of the matter is that obtaining formal baptism requires the approval of a number of people who are in some position of power over me in the church hierarchy.
If those people find my beliefs problematic (and some of them do), and I don’t trust those people, this would make my formal baptism, even if carried out, a farce.

You are responsible for your choices. Those who choose to do unnature sexual acts do so freely, therefore the must accept the natural consequences of those acts. One of those consequences is separation from God, either partially or completely. Permanent separation from God will lead to eternal unhappiness.

So my not condoning the use of contraceptives, including NFP, will get me separated from God eternally??

Does the Church ever state that couples must use NFP?

 

[davidv]

I’ve been talking about that all along, but you don’t seem to relate.

---

How am I blaming others for my woes?

Your own words.

Lucy107:

As I am not baptized, I am technically at the mercy of Catholics, which, when they hold views like you do, fills me with despair, and my prospects for obtaining a formal baptism diminish.

The simple fact of the matter is that obtaining formal baptism requires the approval of a number of people who are in some position of power over me in the church hierarchy.
If those people find my beliefs problematic (and some of them do), and I don’t trust those people, this would make my formal baptism, even if carried out, a farce.

So my not condoning the use of contraceptives, including NFP, will get me separated from God eternally??

Does the Church ever state that couples must use NFP?

Since the OP topic is Homosexual acts, I won’t comment on this topic any more in this thread.

 

[Rau]

I’ve been talking about that all along, but you don’t seem to relate.

Certainly that statement doesn’t relate!

Does the Church ever state that couples must use NFP?

nope. The only thing that the Church advocates that might restrict sex in marriage is to be responsible in parenthood.

 

[Jaaanosik]

**I don’t recall anybody arguing the sinfulness of non-procreative sexual acts on this thread. **

Quite separately, but being no expert on natural law, are the things you nominate really relevant to natural law considerations? Could you provide some references that discuss these things in a natural law context?

So non-procreative sexual acts are not sinful?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Their prayer is: “I want you give myself in the whole fulness but I hope my wife does not give me her ovum/I hope I don’t give him my ovum.”

No, our prayer is, “Father, if it be Thy will, let this cup pass. But not my will, but Thy will, be done.”

 

[Rau]

So non-procreative sexual acts are not sinful?

Don’t change the subject. You said that sin was being used as an argument in this thread. Where did you see that?

 

[Jaaanosik]

No, our prayer is, “Father, if it be Thy will, let this cup pass. But not my will, but Thy will, be done.”

Regardless of the prayer, the ovum does not come to the date. The woman does not give everything.
The couple works very hard for that purpose.
NFP is just one way of many how it’s done.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Don’t change the subject. You said that sin was being used as an argument in this thread. Where did you see that?

What are you doing?
What’s the title of this thread?
How many posters replied back that non-procreative sex is against the Natural law and therefore it’s a sin?
I am not going to count, do it yourself.
What does the Church teach about that?
I really do not understand what you are saying.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Regardless of the prayer, the ovum does not come to the date. The woman does not give everything.
The couple works very hard for that purpose.
NFP is just one way many how it’s done.

But the ovum DID come to the date, Jaaan. Twice. And we have two wonderful children to show for it! (Two out of our five).

We were following the chart, and we were experts at following the chart, but you only learn the particular characteristics of a woman’s fertility cycle by NFP “failing”. And we were more than happy to welcome the children that came into the world through this “failure”.

 

[Rau]

What are you doing?
What’s the title of this thread?
How many posters replied back that non-procreative sex is against the Natural law and therefore it’s a sin?
I am not going to count, do it yourself.
What does the Church teach about that?
I really do not understand what you are saying.

Post #518 asked you to back-up your assertions. I’ll wait.

BTW, what do you understand “procreative” (as it is used by the Church) to mean?

 

[Thorolfr]

Having been here in CAF for a few months, I’ve learned a lot about the Catholic position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but I personally don’t see how we as a society are going to go back to a widespread view that homosexuality is a disorder or that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

To be honest, I’m astounded myself sometimes at how much things have changed in my own lifetime. Forty-three years ago, homosexuality was still classified as a mental illness, and 30 years ago there were still hardly any churches where LGBT people would have been welcome aside perhaps from the United Church of Christ and the almost exclusively gay and lesbian Metropolitan Community Church. I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams back then that same-sex marriage would become legal.

Now there are many churches that welcome LGBT people from my own Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ (UCC), many Anglican churches, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, some United Methodist churches, some American Baptist churches. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 37 states and many ELCA, Presbyterian, Anglican, Quaker, UCC, and Disciples of Christ churches will marry same-sex couples. Many of these churches now allow non-celibate gays and lesbians to be clergy. At the last LGBT pride parade where I live, there was a contingent from the local Methodist and UCC churches. There was even a contingent of LGBT Catholics.

Just a couple of days ago, I was watching NCIS on TV and this episode was about an openly gay US Marine who was being considered for a Medal of Honor. His same-sex spouse was called his “husband” by the actor who plays Gibbs and by the other NCIS characters. Even I was surprised by that episode.

I don’t think that there is any going back at this point no matter how much some people might still disapprove.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Post #518 asked you to back-up your assertions. I’ll wait.

BTW, what do you understand “procreative” (as it is used by the Church) to mean?

From your post #518 “I don’t recall anybody arguing the sinfulness of non-procreative sexual acts on this thread.”
Are the non-procreative sexual acts disordered?
Are the morally disordered acts considered sinful?

procreative - open to life, Church’s capable to procreate

 

[Rau]

…Just a couple of days ago, I was watching NCIS on TV and this episode was about an openly gay US Marine who was being considered for a Medal of Honor. His same-sex spouse was called his “husband” by the actor who plays Gibbs and by the other NCIS characters. Even I was surprised by that episode…

I think you’ll find that the words were specified by the production team - specifically, script-writers. Their objective is to produce an interesting drama. They are quite good at it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

But the ovum DID come to the date, Jaaan. Twice. And we have two wonderful children to show for it! (Two out of our five).

We were following the chart, and we were experts at following the chart, but you only learn the particular characteristics of a woman’s fertility cycle by NFP “failing”. And we were more than happy to welcome the children that came into the world through this “failure”.

And how many times it did not come? I assume many more times.
NFP is one way how it’s done.
Why is putting on condom sinful, intrinsically evil?

 

[Rau]

From your post #518 “I don’t recall anybody arguing the sinfulness of non-procreative sexual acts on this thread.”

That’s right. Which posts argued this? Will you be answering Post #518?

procreative - open to life, Church’s capable to procreate

To clarify - is sex after menopause “procreative” ?

 

[Rau]

And how many times it did not come? I assume many more times.

Most of the time, they don’t meet up. Can you imagine the world were it otherwise

 

[Thorolfr]

I think you’ll find that the words were specified by the production team - specifically, script-writers. Their objective is to produce an interesting drama. They are quite good at it.

It doesn’t just present an “interesting drama”. You can also get an interesting drama by watching the serial killers and psychopaths in Criminal Minds but none of them are presented as “good guys” or “heros”. The NCIS story, on the other hand, presents a married gay man as an American hero and has Gibbs, a sort of all American good guy and a bit of a hero himself calling a gay man’s spouse his “husband”. The more this happens in popular shows like NCIS, the more normal and acceptable this will seem to most Americans. This kind of story just shows how much same-sex marriage and LGBT people have been accepted in much of American society.