B
Bookcat
Guest
*Friendship *- yes such can be quite good and moral. That is yes a very Catholic Concept. Chaste friends.
No charges of “Puritanism” will stick.
No charges of “Puritanism” will stick.
- Status
R
Rin
Guest
I’m afraid chaste love is a very Catholic concept too - and I’m afraid the charges of Puritanism do stick.
B
Bookcat
Guest
An important Apostolate endorsed by the Holy See: couragerc.net/ Those who struggle with SSA will find much help and support there from brothers and sisters in Christ. Together following Christ and growing in holiness.
couragerc.net/wp-content/uploads/YA_CourageBrochure1.pdf
couragerc.net/wp-content/uploads/GeneralCourageBro1.pdf
couragerc.net/wp-content/uploads/YA_CourageBrochure1.pdf
couragerc.net/wp-content/uploads/GeneralCourageBro1.pdf
E
estesbob
Guest
According as chastity would exclude all voluntary Carnal pleasures, or allow this gratification only within prescribed limits, it is known as absolute or relative. The former is enjoined upon the unmarried, the latter is incumbent upon those within the marriage state. The indulgence of the sexual appetite being prohibited to all outside of legitimate wedlock, the wilful impulse to it in the unmarried, like the wilful impulse to anything unlawful, is forbidden. Moreover, such is the intensity of the sexual passion that this impulse is perilously apt to bear away the will before it. Hence, when wilful, it is a grave offence of its very nature. It must be observed too, that this impulse is constituted, not merely by an effective desire, but by every voluntary impure thought. Besides the classification already given, there is another, according to which chastity is distinguished as perfect, or imperfect. The first-mentioned is the virtue of those who, in order to devote themselves more unreservedly to God and their spiritual interests, resolve to refrain perpetually from even the licit pleasures of the marital state. When this resolution is made by one who has never known the gratification allowed in marriage, perfect chastity becomes virginity. Because of these two elements — the high purpose and the absolute inexperience — just referred to, virginal chastity takes on the character of a special virtue distinct from that which connotes abstinence merely from illicit carnal pleasure. Nor is it necessary that the resolution implied in virginity be fortified by a vow, though as practised ordinarily and in the most perfect manner, virginal chastity, as St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, would imply, supposes a vow. (Summa Theologiæ II-II.152.3 ad 4*) The special virtue we are here considering involves a physical integrity. Yet while the Church demands this integrity in those who would wear the veil of consecrated virgins, it is but an accidental quality and may be lost without detriment to that higher spiritual integrity in which formally the virtue of virginity resides. The latter integrity is necessary and is alone sufficient to win the aureole said to await virgins as a special heavenly reward (St. Thomas, Suppl., Q. xcvi, a. 5). Imperfect chastity is that which is proper to the state of those who have not as yet entered wedlock without however having renounced the intention of doing so, of those also who are joined by the bonds of legitimate marriage, and finally of those who have outlived their marital partners. However in the case of those last mentioned the resolution may be taken which obviously would make the chastity practised that which we have defined as the perfect kind. *
newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm
O
One_point
Guest
I m a non-American and the claims made that making out has been a “normal” part of friendship is a shocker to me. I know girls especially hug each other, kiss each other, comment on each other’s beauty, share beds especially if they live in the same household and the family cannot afford a bed a person or the house is too small for enough beds. this is normal. but French kissing? my foot! I will believe that when someone actually presents proof of it instead of just repeating ad nauseum that this was part of catholicism for nearly 20 centuries.If chaste lovers are immoral, then I’m afraid morality entered into the Catholic Church in the 19th century
On the contrary, it is a very Catholic concept, as evidenced in literature, history, even hagiographies if I remember correctly. I really did not know Puritanism had infiltrated the Church to the extent that is evident after these threads. It honestly surprises me, as a non-American.
in the wiki rticle brought here in support there is not even a hint. the point is made just how difficult historical studies into this so called phenomenon by modern writers reading into the past are difficult. And the picture is that of a culture where friendship was more physically expressed through hugs and kisses and such unlike modern culture. I should say modern western culture as this is not the case in the rest of the world. I have no reason to believe that Europe had a peculiar manner of expressing friendship than all the cultures of the world!
Not without proof
O
One_point
Guest
Not every question needs a treatise to answer it. some are fairly straightforward. yes I found the answer quite convincing because it is my own thinking as well. people who cannot marry have no busy entering into social institutions existing for the purpose of that. there is no point in discerning if someone is for you when you know right off the bat he or she cannot be.
I disagree with the attempt to narrow the issue as you do in the second paragraph. consider the example I gave of a parent-child or husband and wife claiming that they are unique and special such that the making out means for them something like a peck that they already share with friends freely. you cannot just say that all we need consider in answering their question is whether adultery as defined (sex acts) is violated. imagine a man claiming that fondling a woman’s breasts does not excite him sexually, so for him it is just agape fondling to see the woman smile. and the woman claiming that her breasts being touched do not excite her either… this is the road this leads to when everything is brought down to subjectivity, it is true for me. where have we heard such claims before? there is nothing on fornication that says this is out specifically.
however, the more important reason I disagree with that attempt at pidgeon-holing the issue is that if romantic attraction is designed to bring males and females together, it arising in different combnations (bringing female and female or male and male or even human and animal together) would be an anomaly and deliberately engaging or fostering it would be deliberately misusing God’s gifts contrary to his plan for his creation. this is an over-arching principle of natural law. it is the same one the church has used together with scripture and tradition to rule out homosexual acts, bestiality and the like. so saying it is specific as if it is exhaustive shows a lack of understanding of how church teaching works. nothing is ever exhaustive. the teachings reflect more than anything past controversies over certain questions than they do the whole truth.
R
Rau
Guest
To be convinced by an answer expressed as an assertion, absent reasoning from appropriate principles, because it matches what you believed previously, seems somewhat odd in a discussion thread such as this. I agree it is evidence, and I can understand it reinforcing a view. But, persuasive?
I wasn’t seeking to narrow it. I was noting that, in respect of the 6th commandment, and the treatment of the subject in the Catechism, the 2 national conferences of Bishops clarified that the thing that is ‘objectively disordered’ was narrower than one might have otherwise thought.
The familial relationships hypothesized don’t make sense to me in light of the destruction of the existing relationships. I’ve said a few times I don’t know what extent of physical engagement is acceptable in non-marital/marriage seeking relationships - I’m not arguing any case there. I said I thought it was inadvisable. But I’m not sure where to find the teaching that says, say, two women with a deep affection for each other must not express that in any way (verbal, physical, via an unusual level of self-sacrifice, etc.)
I agree that SSA is an anomaly, one of many in the human condition. But I’m not convinced that it is always wrong to accede to any element that it inclines, in any way, shape or form. We agree it is surely morally corrupt to misuse a gift of God that is explicitly and strictly for married couples, and we can note that it is inclinations to **that **end that the Bishops have highlighted (as being objectively disordered). The Bishops said the inclination “when oriented toward genital activity” is objectively disordered. What then might the inclination be oriented to that would be licit? There must be something, otherwise the qualification is completely redundant. I know some have suggested that **any **element of (same sex) inter-personal relationship beyond “every-day friends” is oriented to genital activity. If so, what does the Bishops’ qualification mean? Why are they being so "explicit?
O
One_point
Guest
What do you mean “absent reasoning from appropriate principles”? There is very simple straightforward reasoning: dating is a social instiution geared toward finding a marriage partner. Couples that cannot marry have no business entering it. That is good reasoning. it is also appropriate. so I don’t know what you mean.
You are implying there was ever a controversy on this particular question whether the whole of the orientation or simply the desire for homosexual sex is geared towards an immoral object. I am unaware besides such places like CAF whether this is even a matter any Bishop has been concerned with. hence the “clarification” referred to is being imposed on the bishops words. their concern was separating sin from inclination and explaining why neither is not considered good.
sorry rau but this just seems to be a cop-out. what “destruction” of existing relationships do you mean if you genuinely believe as was claimed that there is nothing sexual meant in the making out? you are admitting then that you actually DONT believe the claim that this has a non-sexual “agape” meaning…
The bishops statement certainly do not contradict the view that the attraction itself is disordered. they simply are concerned with a specific issue shaped by questions arising from a certain controversy which is: why is the inclination disordered as opposed to being neutral? the meaning you extract is absolutely not in the statement: that it is ordered towards something licit except when involving an explicit desire (as opposed to INCLINATION) for homosexual sex!
In light of the church’s whole teaching of on the meaning of human sexuality, that reading is uncalled for. certainly, all inclinations are ordered towards something good, for example, the attraction here is ordered toward finding completion in another human being in an exclusive fashion as a mate. but that completion is designed by God to be found in a woman (by men) and vice versa. in so far as that is concerned, there is no disorder, but in as far as it is directed in a man to a man, that is a disorder. it is only correct to the extent that the man is an individual human being but no more. this does not conflict with the bishops’ statement read in its own context and in the whole teaching of the church on human sexuality.
O
One_point
Guest
Also, the CDF statement was meant to correct misuderstandings of and expound on an earlier statement saying that only the sexual activity was wrong but not the inclination itself. this led to “an overly benign” understanding of the inclination. considering that the church had already made clear that the explicit sexual acts were wrong, what would be the import of this statement?
and this makes sense in light of the whole of church teaching on the meaning of human sexuality. the homosexual orientation is instead to be “lived out” in a Christian manner, as an unchosen cross, to be shared with Christ for the good of the whole church.
Why on earth would it be a concern to the CDF that people were being led to believe living out the orientation in homosexual activity was morally acceptable, if its understanding of homosexual activity was as narrow and strict as you claim: explicit sexual acts? that was already made clear in 1976. it seems to me that what was considered homosexual activity is far more than what the church had ruled out explicitly in 1976.
and this makes sense in light of the whole of church teaching on the meaning of human sexuality. the homosexual orientation is instead to be “lived out” in a Christian manner, as an unchosen cross, to be shared with Christ for the good of the whole church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And in fact Pope Benedict is much narrower in his definition. He leaves no room for the speculative thinking. And there is no blog no book written and no personal statements which invalidate the Vatican and Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Its a weak attempt to bypass the official teaching of the Church. Its a common polemical tactic and in all areas of Church teaching.
“In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
The point proposed above is addressed.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Froman_curia%2Fcongregations%2Fcfaith%2Fdocuments%2Frc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html&ei=X5i_U72hN8KK8QGJu4G4BA&usg=AFQjCNG8qhxP0uXvoAI0rxL-Cg5K-QXC3Q
Again here…
“While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency. [Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them], simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently, the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful”.
[it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.]
[Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them],
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usccb.org%2Fissues-and-action%2Fhuman-life-and-dignity%2Fhomosexuality%2F&ei=npq_U67yB-LE8AH0xYGQBw&usg=AFQjCNFmDMvs879khgpJZ6ADrvVZHhpsfQ
“In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
The point proposed above is addressed.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Froman_curia%2Fcongregations%2Fcfaith%2Fdocuments%2Frc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html&ei=X5i_U72hN8KK8QGJu4G4BA&usg=AFQjCNG8qhxP0uXvoAI0rxL-Cg5K-QXC3Q
Again here…
“While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency. [Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them], simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently, the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful”.
[it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.]
[Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them],
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usccb.org%2Fissues-and-action%2Fhuman-life-and-dignity%2Fhomosexuality%2F&ei=npq_U67yB-LE8AH0xYGQBw&usg=AFQjCNFmDMvs879khgpJZ6ADrvVZHhpsfQ
R
Rau
Guest
I think we are not making progress. I will answer your points above but I feel the discussion points we make are not connecting with each other.What do you mean “absent reasoning from appropriate principles”? There is very simple straightforward reasoning: dating is a social instiution geared toward finding a marriage partner. Couples that cannot marry have no business entering it. That is good reasoning. it is also appropriate. so I don’t know what you mean.
You are implying there was ever a controversy on this particular question whether the whole of the orientation or simply the desire for homosexual sex is geared towards an immoral object. I am unaware besides such places like CAF whether this is even a matter any Bishop has been concerned with. hence the “clarification” referred to is being imposed on the bishops words. their concern was separating sin from inclination and explaining why neither is not considered good.
sorry rau but this just seems to be a cop-out. what “destruction” of existing relationships do you mean if you genuinely believe as was claimed that there is nothing sexual meant in the making out? you are admitting then that you actually DONT believe the claim that this has a non-sexual “agape” meaning…
The bishops statement certainly do not contradict the view that the attraction itself is disordered. they simply are concerned with a specific issue shaped by questions arising from a certain controversy which is: why is the inclination disordered as opposed to being neutral? the meaning you extract is absolutely not in the statement: that it is ordered towards something licit except when involving an explicit desire (as opposed to INCLINATION) for homosexual sex!
In light of the church’s whole teaching of on the meaning of human sexuality, that reading is uncalled for. certainly, all inclinations are ordered towards something good, for example, the attraction here is ordered toward finding completion in another human being in an exclusive fashion as a mate. but that completion is designed by God to be found in a woman (by men) and vice versa. in so far as that is concerned, there is no disorder, but in as far as it is directed in a man to a man, that is a disorder. it is only correct to the extent that the man is an individual human being but no more. this does not conflict with the bishops’ statement read in its own context and in the whole teaching of the church on human sexuality.
- I saw no reasoning from fundamental principle or teaching in the CA response. What you quote above - I view as an assertion. Like: “15239343434567 is not a prime number because it has factors other than itself and one…” This is an assertion, and while I know some of it to be true, the conclusion is not persuasive. Is it persuasive to you?
- If you compare the Bishop’s words to the Catechism - it seems to add focus to the key point. The orientation to “intrinsically disordered” acts is the issue. [Of course, it does not mean that only the latter acts are sinful.] I know you take the view that all manifestations arising from the inclination are wrong because they orient to such acts. On this point - I’m not convinced.
- I think the relationship SMGS described is inconsistent with a familial relationship. If you adopt the latter, you destroy the former - which is wrong in my view. That is all I mean. A sexual element is not relevant. I actually did not participate in or comment on the “agape” stuff.
- The Bishops could have left it as “The inclination is objectively disordered”. But they qualified it with (something like) ."…when oriented toward genital activity…" I was just asking - OK, so does that mean the inclination can be oriented otherwise? If it cannot, then why make that qualification?? Can you see why I then ask *“how can this orientation be acceded to in an acceptable way?” *
O
One_point
Guest
I did not say all manifestations arising from this inclination: I am saying wilfully encouraging it in that wrong orientation. I am talking about a free decision of a person who knows that this orientation is directing him towards the wrong object of his need for complementary intimacy and forsters it. “manifestation” implies something involuntary like the attraction itself.: you say “I’m not convinced”. Fair enough. But you agree that it is an anomaly and that this attraction in male-female is to make us mate with each other?? Saying “im not convinced” is not an adequate answer in light of that. Either we say this is not orientated towards mating for ANYBODY including heterosexuals, or we say what homosexuals are experiencing si something else and not what the heterosexuals are experiencing.
And talking about prsuavive reasoning, what about one relationship destroys the latter? This is an assertion and only avoids engaging the issue.
The church has already said how it can be oriented or acceded to otherwise: By ***accepting it ***as a cross.
Think about it as a game of darts. In so far as this orientation is the very good, human, God-ordained impulse to be completed in another in a more or less permanent or exclusive fashion, it is a good thing. In so far as it is directed towards the right group (humans), it is a good thing. in so far s it is directed toward an individual, it is a good thing. but in so far as it directed toward athe same-sex, it cannot be a good thing. It misses the mark. Not as much as a person who is oriented towards inanimate things or animals, but it still misses the mark. This is how I read the church’s words. it is not to say, unless the inclination involved desiring homosexual sex, it is proper or accurate or right. It is an anomaly in light of God’s design. The issue is that you and the others are claiming that it is right and moral for us, knowing this, to act in a manner that says otherwise: that this is the correct order of things!
R
Rau
Guest
I think that is a fair question (as is the one I asked in my last post) and I don’t claim to know the answer with certainty. But I have read that Letter a few times, typically in producing support for an argument against homosexual relations. It focusses on restating the fundamental issues we read in the Catechism today and blasting various groups that - essentially, argue point blank in contradiction to fundamental teaching. In particular, “homosexual activity” or “homosexual behaviour” - referred to often in the letter - seems to be directed at “genital activity” or so it seems to me from the sample quotes below.Why on earth would it be a concern to the CDF that people were being led to believe living out the orientation in homosexual activity was morally acceptable, if its understanding of homosexual activity was as narrow and strict as you claim: explicit sexual acts? that was already made clear in 1976. it seems to me that what was considered homosexual activity is far more than what the church had ruled out explicitly in 1976.
- It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in **homosexual behaviour **therefore acts immorally.
R
Rau
Guest
Now that is a cop-out! The orientation or any manifestation of itself does not or cannot go there in any sense I understand.
The homosexual person is stuck with the orientation. He can reject all of its manifestations if he chooses. But the orientation remains what it is.
R
Rau
Guest
I claim no such thing at all… The issue is that you and the others are claiming that it is right and moral for us, knowing this, to act in a manner that says otherwise: that this is the correct order of things!
I say that I find the prohibition by the Church to be fairly specific. I don’t know the picture with certainty outside that.
O
One_point
Guest
Homosexual activity obviously includes fundamentally homosexual sex. that is not the issue. the issue is the claim ONLY sex is what the church considers homosexual activity. for example, say a gay couple goes on a date and makes out at the doorstep being dropped off home. do you think the CDF would not consider this "homosexual activity’ because it has not ended up in sex that night?
I also looked at that letter and while it references the dissenters directly later on in the letter, it does not do so directly in the part quoted. there it seems to be concerned precisely with misunderstandings of the inclination itself in what is presumably good catholic circles, not the sexual acts. it is there it says people ought not to be mislead into living out that orientation in homosexual activity in what they think is a moral way. this is stated in the negative: what is NOT an authenic way of living out the orientation. In the positive, it is to be lived as a cross in union wit Christ for the good of the church. you would think if there was something positive about fostering the same sex attractions themselves (as you seem to be saying) the church would not just say so, but encourage it as a good. instead, the church seems to treat it as a manner of suffering to be lovingly endured and embraced but not taken as a good in itself.
O
One_point
Guest
you misunderstand. I don’t mean to be changed. that is possible with grace but that is not what I mean. Rau have you read works of saints on accepting our weaknesses? this is no cop-out I assure you. you can use what is evil (not morally evil, but physically evil) for good. for example I have a problem with rage. it is always wrong. I can approach it as a curse or I can approach it as an area in which my humility can grow because it makes my imperfections manifest. I cannot pretend to be perfect in the face of my sins of anger. I am not gay. but when I say a way in which it can be acceded to, I mean a way in which it can be lived as a force for good. if it is experienced as suffering and accepted and offered, it is being accepted by the person as something positive in his life, as something positively willed by God for him as opposed to a curse, but willed not for the purposes of “romantic friendships” but for other purposes, holiness (his own and others) hence it is DIRECTED (oriented) towards a good.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The teaching in the Church is from antiquity.
St Basil the Great
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).
Doctor of the Church East and West after death and “Great” while alive. His perspective is in line with chaste and celibate today. Absent of anything but a perpetual state of virginity which is in the linked Vatican Document And emphasis on the separation of carnal and spiritual love.
St Basil the Great
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).
Doctor of the Church East and West after death and “Great” while alive. His perspective is in line with chaste and celibate today. Absent of anything but a perpetual state of virginity which is in the linked Vatican Document And emphasis on the separation of carnal and spiritual love.
- Status