S
Setimet
Guest
I’m not that smart can you explain the terms a bit more or refer me to a “Catholic dictionary” definition?
- Status
S
Setimet
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
I’m sorry, theologians tend to use euphemisms a lot. (I’m not a theologian, but I do too.)
For purposes of Catholic theology, a sexual act that is unitive and procreative is one that has the possibility of making babies. The husband and wife’s bodies are sexually complementary, allowing their bodies to be united as one, and if they are not contnracepting the act can, but does not always, result in new life. It’s just marital sex.
S
Setimet
Guest
Ok! Thank you!
So, would it be oversimplifying to say that Catholic theology teaches that in order for sex to be unitive it must also have the ability to be procreative?
S
sw85
Guest
What you are saying here, simply put, is that it is impossible to love a person in the meaningfully Christian way and also fornicate or commit adultery with them. This is because love in the meaningful Christian sense is not merely an emotion but an act of the will; it means willing what is best for another, simply for that other’s sake. Love is therefore entirely incompatible with sin. You are not showing love to a person when you are sinning against or with them. The same principle you just articulated applies just as forcefully to sodomy.
If sodomy is a sin, then it is impossible to show love in the meaningful Christian sense to a person by sodomizing them. They may show other forms of love, like the kind of denuded modern thing we would normally call “affection,” but affection does not save souls.
Of course real love is morally licit (even morally obligatory). What is being said is that real love is flatly incompatible with sodomy, because real love means willing what is best for another, sin is the opposite of what’s best for another, and sodomy is a sin. Hence one cannot show charity to a person by sodomizing them.
It is a sin because it is contrary to the purpose for which the human sexual faculty was designed. That purpose is procreation. Note that a man and woman who cannot conceive a child are nevertheless not thwarting the purpose of the human sexual faculty by having sex. The reason for their inability to conceive is altogether accidental to their nature as a couple.
It is a radically impoverished notion of what “union” to reduce it to the existence of certain chemicals in the body; we are Catholics, not materialists!
Magisterial definition is one way of rendering a teaching infallible. It is not the only way. The prohibition on sodomy belongs directly to divine revelation: it is revealed to us by God himself, recorded in Scripture, and supported by the unanimous witness of the Church from the beginning.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
You’re welcome.So funny story, I actually used to totally agree with Peter Plato’s #2 answer. THANK YOU for spelling those answers out for me!
I agree. God’s law cannot be arbitrary, and moral commands are there for our own good. There are, of course, at least three types of harms: physical harms, mental harms, and spiritual harms.
Yes, this is the central question. I have been impressed by your humility in this thread and your sincere pursuit of truth. Now I think we need to test those traits, in some respect. So before we consider who it might be hurting, let’s go through two preliminary points:
- It may be that you or I don’t have the right sort of evidence right now to see who lesbian sex might hurt, even though it does hurt people. So if we can’t find evidence of hurt, there still *might *be very deep hurt involved. How much this possibility affects one’s decisions depends on other things. If you are totally sold out on God’s Church being wholly inspired, it would make sense to trust that there are harms, even if you can’t see them. If you think the Church is sometimes wrong, on the other hand, you might maintain the humility to say you might be wrong, but proceed on the assumption you are right, until shown otherwise.
- If I’m going to suggest possible harms of lesbian sexual activity, there’s a possibility you will be offended at them. This is natural. But if your goal is honestly to get to the truth, you need to resist the temptation to express offense. I am giving suggestions out of an honest desire to understand the moral landscape, and an honest desire to help you. I acknowledge I might be wrong, and I’m glad to be proven wrong.
S
Setimet
Guest
First of all I wanted to point out that “sodomizing” is a very rude term. I’m not saying that as an accusation because I am obviously imperfect, I just didn’t know if you were aware that it is offensive.
As as the USSCB puts it on marriageuniqueforareason.org "Any lack of respect, lack of compassion, or lack of sensitivity towards persons with a homosexual inclination is unacceptable. "Second, your statement is a logical fallacy. You have placed your conclusion as the premise of the argument.
I am arguing that you can in fact show love in a meaningful Christian sense in a same-sex relationship by willing the good of another. I argue this because gender in no way correlates with the ability to love someone.
So what I am understanding is that the church teaches that sex is both unitive and procreative and that they are linked and you cannot have one without the other…this leads me to this quote…
And so where in the Bible did Jesus or an apostle, or infallibly in Church tradition, was it clearly laid out that sex is unitive and procreative and that they must be both and cannot be just unitive? This is another “appeal to authority” logical fallacy, which by the way MANY theologians, Catholic included argue that those so called prohibitions are misinterpretations.
Give me some facts. Not “because they say so”. They once said it was a moral good to torture heretics too. Which is why I once again point out the argument against homosexuality is not dogma
We are not materialists. But faith and reason support each other. That’s why the dogma of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t defined until much later. My point in bringing up the scientific ability to form a pair bond is to point out that it has the same design in same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I think that would be right, at least have the potential to be procreative simply because of the bodily union.Ok! Thank you!
So, would it be oversimplifying to say that Catholic theology teaches that in order for sex to be unitive it must also have the ability to be procreative?
S
Setimet
Guest
YES YES YES! Good ground rules!You’re welcome.
But if your goal is honestly to get to the truth, you need to resist the temptation to express offense. I am giving suggestions out of an honest desire to understand the moral landscape, and an honest desire to help you. I acknowledge I might be wrong, and I’m glad to be proven wrong.
Are these ground rules OK? Sorry to be so slow and deliberate, but I don’t like throwing out things that might offend, without being quite clear about what my intentions are.
First of all…idk if you can tell by my recent posts I am slowly starting to lose my patience. Here’s the thing. I realize people often say offensive things without meaning them and I have said PLENTY of offensive things, especially before this experience so I have zero room to judge! Thank you for your patience with me!
Thank you!
Ok so: how can lesbian sex be harmful to another person?
S
Setimet
Guest
What I meant to say was “I promise I won’t take offense!”. And I am excited to have this discussion with you!
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Alright, so first of all, let me say that ever since I was a high school teacher for a period of time, God put this issue of lesbianism on my heart. You see, despite that fact that I’m gay/bisexual/gayish/SSA/what-you-willYES YES YES! Good ground rules!
First of all…idk if you can tell by my recent posts I am slowly starting to lose my patience. Here’s the thing. I realize people often say offensive things without meaning them and I have said PLENTY of offensive things, especially before this experience so I have zero room to judge! Thank you for your patience with me!
Thank you!
Ok so: how can lesbian sex be harmful to another person?
p), I didn’t get on well with boys in my classes who were/seemed gay. But I got on exceedingly well with girls who seemed interested in lesbianism. They were passionate and vibrant and searching, all things I resonated with. They weren’t conformists, which I also very much enjoyed.But I also noticed certain tendencies in them. This is all anecdotal, and could be inaccurate – but I don’t think it is inaccurate, at least not entirely. These girls were more on edge than other girls. They were more likely to cut, and more likely to deal with levels of mental illness (this could just be because their parents thought lesbianism was a mental illness, but I doubt it). They were more into the drug scene – though my darling student Kay---- was so very honest and deep and perceptive about how unsatisfying it all was. She is probably my favorite person that I’ve ever taught.
The things I noticed then are played out in the statistics on lesbianism and various behaviors. Those who identify as lesbians are more likely to use drugs, experience mental illness, be promiscuous, and – by a startling discrepancy – more likely to commit suicide than other girls.
Do I know why? No, I don’t. I imagine that social ostracization plays some role, but I’m not sure how much. I’m quite sure that parental rejection plays a huge role – there are studies about this. But I’m not sure it’s the sole cause. If the Catholic Church were correct, this would predict that various other sins would be associated with sins like lesbian activity. So unless science can show that sin ISN’T the cause, or unless suicide rates and the like go down with social acceptance, the theory that the sinfulness of the activity explains these statistics is a live option.
Let me tell you how I approach my own homosexual tendencies, which will get at my interpretation of the things I said above. First, an analogy: For about 12 years, I experienced a very embarrassing chronic itch. I don’t know what could have caused it, but I found myself itching obsessively, and the more I itched the worse it got.
But itching felt good. It felt GREAT. And I felt absolutely magnetically drawn to itching. It did damage, but I consistently chose to itch despite the damage.
My sense of my own sexuality is the same kind of thing. I want to be with men sexually, I want to look at porn, I want to fantasize, and so on. Imagining being with a man makes me feel good and makes my pain go away – at least temporarily. There is something very real in myself that “gets something” out of these activities. It’s kind of like the puzzle piece fits into place, and the needy part of me is satisfied.
But that’s what itching was like too. But eventually, I went to the doctor, and the itch went away. I mean, I’m sure it would feel great to itch now too. But I don’t want to do it. There’s no urge anymore.
If the Church is right about sin, then that’s the way the sin works. We all have things deeply wrong, and certain actions make the deeply wrong feeling go away. They quell the itch. But the itch always comes back. It’s not because “I’m gay” that the itch comes back. It’s because I’m human. Homosexuality is just one manifestation of an itch we all have.
Homosexual activity is a deeply satisfying activity that leaves us deeply empty. I say that, and I acknowledge I don’t have evidence enough to prove it. But those statistics hint at the evidence of a deep emptiness in people who identify as gay.
I wish it were otherwise. I wish I could live in a universe where following my passion for a beautiful man into sexual bliss would make me a better man, would build up the body of Christ, would result in the birth of children and a family, would encourage a virtuous society. But that’s not the way the world is. And God made it this way for a reason.
I don’t think He hates gay people. But I think He has something far better than sex in store for them.
I hope you recognize that I’m struggling with you, and I’m not trying to give easy answers. But I don’t see sex as a good thing for you and your friend, however much I trust you have a wonderful relationship.
Peace,
Prodigal
M
marymary1975
Guest
The statement that the church at some point said that it was a moral good to torture heretics is completely false. The church has never ever in its history has proclaimed such a thing. O am starting with that because I am shocked with that statement and is completely false. Having corrected that from your post above and others u don’t think you have full comprehension of church’s teaching and that is the reason why you are struggling with this.
The other point I have to correct is the immaculate conception. The church does not wake up one morning and says hey let come up with a new dogma and they pass a new dogma. What you stated about the immaculate conception gives that impression. The immaculate conception was not publicly promulgated until much later. That it wasn’t defined until much later is false. It had already been defined for most of its history. What happens is that due toits wwideness and prudence the church does not publicly promulgates things until it is 100% sure that it going to never ever give a step back on its position. That is why it wasn’t until much later that they promulgated what they have known for centuries. The immaculate conception was defined way before its promulgated. It wasn’t published only because the church in its prudence decides to wait.
At some you stated that homosexuality or sinful of homosexuality is not a dogma. Again that is incorrect. Also your posts gave me the impression that you are thinking that the church at some point will change its position. Again the church never changes its positions or dogmas. Hasn’t done it for over two thousand years and won’t do it now. To the church same sex couple cannot marry and never will. You also mentioned that Peter’s analogy was not correct because the difference between a couple commiting premarital sex and a same sex couple was that there was no commitment in the first one. This is an incorrect assumption based on the idea that the church someday will change its teaching. In a same sex couple there is no commitment because it is not a marriage and never will be able to be similar to a marriage. So Peter’s comparison is correct. A same sex couple is I’m the same situation as a couple having sex before marriage. They are both formication.
As to a biblical quote, Jesus himself defined marriage strictly between a man and a woman. Matthew 19:4-5. That is the fact. Jesus explicitly defined marriage as between man and woman and made a direct reference to the Genesis when god created them male and female for purposes of reproduction. So it is not because they say so. It is because Jesus said so and Jesus is God. Homosexual acts are sexual acts that will always be outside of marriage so they are fornication. Fornication is sinful and all this is dogma from the church because it comes straight from Jesus’ mouth.
As to loving someone else. I am afraid you are under the secular concept of love. Yes love us our command and we have to love each other but that love established in the bible is in no way similar to secular love. Secular love is basically based on hormonal attraction and basedbon sexual urges. That is not the live we are encourages. A “love” that attempts to mimic a situation that god established for a certain purpose is not real love. Run around sins are not love. You can indeed love a person of the same sex in a meaningful christian way but to be Christian that love has to be pure. That love probably has to resemble the love st Francis of Assisi had toward st Claire just to place an example. A lobe which is pure and reflective of love. Not a “love” based on a sexual attraction that tries to mimic a marriage.
And yes the church teaches the primary reason if marriage is procreation and the church teaches that sexual acts have to procreative and open to procreation and also unitive. They are linked and there are no runs around it.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
But it is perfectly valid to ask why the Church teaches this. That is what Setimet is doing.
If you have some helpful explanation of Church teaching, we’d love to hear it. Simply asserting it is dogma does not help one feel motivated to follow it. Maybe it should, but it doesn’t.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
A superb post!Alright, so first of all, let me say that ever since I was a high school teacher for a period of time, God put this issue of lesbianism on my heart. You see, despite that fact that I’m gay/bisexual/gayish/SSA/what-you-will
But I also noticed certain tendencies in them. This is all anecdotal, and could be inaccurate – but I don’t think it is inaccurate, at least not entirely. These girls were more on edge than other girls. They were more likely to cut, and more likely to deal with levels of mental illness (this could just be because their parents thought lesbianism was a mental illness, but I doubt it). They were more into the drug scene – though my darling student Kay---- was so very honest and deep and perceptive about how unsatisfying it all was. She is probably my favorite person that I’ve ever taught.
The things I noticed then are played out in the statistics on lesbianism and various behaviors. Those who identify as lesbians are more likely to use drugs, experience mental illness, be promiscuous, and – by a startling discrepancy – more likely to commit suicide than other girls.
Do I know why? No, I don’t. I imagine that social ostracization plays some role, but I’m not sure how much. I’m quite sure that parental rejection plays a huge role – there are studies about this. But I’m not sure it’s the sole cause. If the Catholic Church were correct, this would predict that various other sins would be associated with sins like lesbian activity. So unless science can show that sin ISN’T the cause, or unless suicide rates and the like go down with social acceptance, the theory that the sinfulness of the activity explains these statistics is a live option.
Let me tell you how I approach my own homosexual tendencies, which will get at my interpretation of the things I said above. First, an analogy: For about 12 years, I experienced a very embarrassing chronic itch. I don’t know what could have caused it, but I found myself itching obsessively, and the more I itched the worse it got.
But itching felt good. It felt GREAT. And I felt absolutely magnetically drawn to itching. It did damage, but I consistently chose to itch despite the damage.
My sense of my own sexuality is the same kind of thing. I want to be with men sexually, I want to look at porn, I want to fantasize, and so on. Imagining being with a man makes me feel good and makes my pain go away – at least temporarily. There is something very real in myself that “gets something” out of these activities. It’s kind of like the puzzle piece fits into place, and the needy part of me is satisfied.
But that’s what itching was like too. But eventually, I went to the doctor, and the itch went away. I mean, I’m sure it would feel great to itch now too. But I don’t want to do it. There’s no urge anymore.
If the Church is right about sin, then that’s the way the sin works. We all have things deeply wrong, and certain actions make the deeply wrong feeling go away. They quell the itch. But the itch always comes back. It’s not because “I’m gay” that the itch comes back. It’s because I’m human. Homosexuality is just one manifestation of an itch we all have.
Homosexual activity is a deeply satisfying activity that leaves us deeply empty. I say that, and I acknowledge I don’t have evidence enough to prove it. But those statistics hint at the evidence of a deep emptiness in people who identify as gay.
I wish it were otherwise. I wish I could live in a universe where following my passion for a beautiful man into sexual bliss would make me a better man, would build up the body of Christ, would result in the birth of children and a family, would encourage a virtuous society. But that’s not the way the world is. And God made it this way for a reason.
I don’t think He hates gay people. But I think He has something far better than sex in store for them.
I hope you recognize that I’m struggling with you, and I’m not trying to give easy answers. But I don’t see sex as a good thing for you and your friend, however much I trust you have a wonderful relationship.
Peace,
Prodigal
Thank you for taking the time to write it.
B
buffalo
Guest
A baby is the ultimate manifestation of their unity.Ok! Thank you!
So, would it be oversimplifying to say that Catholic theology teaches that in order for sex to be unitive it must also have the ability to be procreative?
V
Vico
Guest
Fertility is not required.Ok! Thank you!
So, would it be oversimplifying to say that Catholic theology teaches that in order for sex to be unitive it must also have the ability to be procreative?
**procreative ** pro·cre·a·tive (prō’krē-ā’tĭv)
*adj. *
*] Capable of reproducing; generative.
*] Of or directed to procreation.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
D
djames99
Guest
Why do you wish to explore for chinks in the armor of sound doctrine?. Rather, we should consider it less of a burden that our Caretaker has done the work for us. How solid is our Faith?
No one can BE this. One could say ‘I have never experienced being tempted by these sins’. If one practices it, then he has succumbed to the temptation, but the two can never result in one natural entity in this lifetime, as this would be a hybrid of evil and good in a natural form. We were created in God’s image, impossible if we were created evil.
Prior to giving in, some will experience temptation to experiment. Evil forces will manipulate the senses and implant the unnatural desire within him. But even then the warning claxtons are sounding in the honed conscience of wise men, and he we recall that God found this behavior abhorrent and unnatural, enough to have him turn his back to it.
- Neither of us ever considered ourselves gay or bi or anything,*
No one can BE this. One could say ‘I have never experienced being tempted by these sins’. If one practices it, then he has succumbed to the temptation, but the two can never result in one natural entity in this lifetime, as this would be a hybrid of evil and good in a natural form. We were created in God’s image, impossible if we were created evil.
Prior to giving in, some will experience temptation to experiment. Evil forces will manipulate the senses and implant the unnatural desire within him. But even then the warning claxtons are sounding in the honed conscience of wise men, and he we recall that God found this behavior abhorrent and unnatural, enough to have him turn his back to it.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
This advice sounds to me like telling Hamlet to just suck it up, because God doesn’t want him to kill his uncle. Sure, killing his uncle might be a bad idea. But loving God isn’t going to make his desire to kill his uncle go away. Things are much more complex than that.
Or, to paraphrase, saying that “the honed consciences of wise men” won’t succumb to gay sex doesn’t help hone a person’s conscience.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
By being lesbians they are by nature nonconformist with the pervasive heteronormativity of society.Alright, so first of all, let me say that ever since I was a high school teacher for a period of time, God put this issue of lesbianism on my heart. You see, despite that fact that I’m gay/bisexual/gayish/SSA/what-you-will
People who aren’t out to their family are often on edge, especially if they fear their parents’ reaction.
Cutting and drugs are coping mechanisms, they often start before the people are out to anyone and not infrequently start when they are struggling to be out to themselves. It’s a way to numb the pain, to numb the emotional pain of having to lie so much to your parents and everyone around you.
The last factor is internalized self loathing resulting from the messages you get from parents and society, That can very much haunt you until long after the bullies are gone.
Uh, okay.
That deep emptiness is found throughout society today especially amongst young people.
Too bad heterosexuals have so thoroughly screwed up society.
T
Thorns
Guest
Since gay relationships are not properly ordered, they can never be seen as “properly ordered.” Pretty simple.So funny story, I actually used to totally agree with Peter Plato’s #2 answer. THANK YOU for spelling those answers out for me!
Lucky #3 is a big part of what has me stumped. Pre-marital sex=accidental pregnancy. Got it. Even the Leviticus holiness code “don’t eat shell fish” would’ve been beneficial back in those days.
The commandants are put in place for our own well-being, not because God feels like it. I understand this. What I’m having trouble with is how someone can receive the grace to love someone very deeply, but be told it has specific boundaries. Boundaries make sense if it’s hurting someone.
Who is it hurting then? And how?
Thanks!
P.S. If anyone was going to say that HIV is punishment for gays, I just wanted to point out that aside from being insensitive, as of 2009 the CDC has 0 cases of HIV from sexual contact between two women. Doesn’t mean lesbians can’t get HIV, they can, but it has yet to be transmitted via lesbian sexual contact.
The same way anorexia will never be the proper order. The same way gorging on food and vomiting it all up will never be properly ordered. Humans werent built for that. They were built to eat properly, which is enough to satiate hunger and keep it in your body so that it absorbs the nutrients. You cant argue and say “anorexia is healthy for me though!” Or “Pieces of cardboard is just an alternate diet for me, it cant be wrong” when in reality we see people who fall under that as disordered.
When humans do things against what they were ordered for, negative consequences always follow in one way or another. To recognize the disorder and realize its negative impact and try to excuse it while still moving forward with it because it brings you pleasure, is selfish.
- Status