Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[Bookcat]

Yes, the inclination itself must be seen as a disorder with respect to its object of sexual activity specifically.

No that is not what the CDF is saying there.

 

[SMGS127]

No that is not what the CDF is saying there.

Well we can agree to disagree on our interpretations of it. I think it’s very clear, especially when taken in context with every papal statement put out ever by the Magisterium on the topic of homosexuality, which all specifically refer only to same-sex sexual activity.

 

[Bookcat]

Well we can agree to disagree on our interpretations of it. I think it’s very clear, especially when taken in context with every papal statement put out ever by the Magisterium on the topic of homosexuality, which all specifically refer only to same-sex sexual activity.

The clarification of the CDF there -means exactly what it says. Not something different. Yes sexual activity too is disordered of course.

But the CDF was clarifying that it is not only the activity that is disordered. The inclination itself is disordered.

(That does not mean though (to be clear)- that the inclination is “a sin itself” –that would not not be correct. Indeed disordered inclinations need not ever enter into* any* sin for one does not choose to act according to them -but rather increase in virtue—to the heights of holiness).

 

[SMGS127]

The clarification of the CDF there -means exactly what it says. Not something different. Yes sexual activity too is disordered of course.

But the CDF was clarifying that it is not only the activity that is disordered. The inclination itself is disordered.

(That does not mean though (to be clear)- that the inclination is “a sin itself” –that would not not be correct. Indeed disordered inclinations need not ever enter into* any* sin for one does not choose to act according to them -but rather increase in virtue—to the heights of holiness).

Again, let’s agree to disagree. We obviously have different interpretations.

 

[Bookcat]

Again, let’s agree to disagree. We obviously have different interpretations.

One cannot really interpret the Teaching of the Church differently than the way the Church has actually clarified. That is the point of the CDF being able to clarify matters.

 

[One_point]

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the inclination of homosexuality is disordered in the object of same-sex sexual activity, not same-sex “attachments,” as LongingSoul put it. Going further into attachments is taking a rigorist moral approach to Catholic teaching, and is thus her opinion.

Hey Smg, Are there moral theologians (the dissenting bunch don’t count, I am sure you don’t follow them yourself) who follow this approach to catholic theology you and Rau have described? From those catholic answers priests (are they priests or theologians?), it seems they have that assumption that most people have, that romatic involvement is senseless outside opennes to marriage and would be at the very least imprudent to indulge without even the remotest possibility that a marriage would occur.

The CDF did say in the document that we should be guided by the theologians (again not the dissenting bunch who don’t even think sodomy itself is wrong!) so it would be prudent to find out from them and orthodox priests if this interpretation is in accord with catholic theology on the whole. Sometimes we focus too much on details leading to a reductionist view instead of a wholistic one. These people would be helpful if only to keep us from our illusions should we be experiencing one unbeknownst to us. Remember the saints took direction very seriously to keep from falling for their own ideas which may end up being wrong for all they knew that’s how they kept from ending up heretics like their many counterparts and contemporaries. I think seeking that opinion would be prudent. Afterall, no heresy ever arose on a clearly defined area. They all arose out of somewhat grey areas where “the church hasn’t explicitly said”, even though certain things were not said simply because they were never needed to be said; everybody took them for granted and nobody contradicted them until the heresy. but the orthodox knew they were contrary and fought it until the church was forced to restate what had always been believed in a manner to exclude the heresy just to counter the innovators. So if we are proposing something that by all standards of behavior and expectation has not been the norm, in an area of faith and morals, it would behoove us to find clarification by those we’ve been given for guidance, would it not? I think this was not a bad suggestion on longing’s part.

 

[SMGS127]

Hey Smg, Are there moral theologians (the dissenting bunch don’t count, I am sure you don’t follow them yourself) who follow this approach to catholic theology you and Rau have described? From those catholic answers priests (are they priests or theologians?), it seems they have that assumption that most people have, that romatic involvement is senseless outside opennes to marriage and would be at the very least imprudent to indulge without even the remotest possibility that a marriage would occur.

The CDF did say in the document that we should be guided by the theologians (again not the dissenting bunch who don’t even think sodomy itself is wrong!) so it would be prudent to find out from them and orthodox priests if this interpretation is in accord with catholic theology on the whole. Sometimes we focus too much on details leading to a reductionist view instead of a wholistic one. These people would be helpful if only to keep us from our illusions should we be experiencing one unbeknownst to us. Remember the saints took direction very seriously to keep from falling for their own ideas which may end up being wrong for all they knew that’s how they kept from ending up heretics like their many counterparts and contemporaries. I think seeking that opinion would be prudent. Afterall, no heresy ever arose on a clearly defined area. They all arose out of somewhat grey areas where “the church hasn’t explicitly said”, even though certain things were not said simply because they were never needed to be said; everybody took them for granted and nobody contradicted them until the heresy. but the orthodox knew they were contrary and fought it until the church was forced to restate what had always been believed in a manner to exclude the heresy just to counter the innovators. So if we are proposing something that by all standards of behavior and expectation has not been the norm, in an area of faith and morals, it would behoove us to find clarification by those we’ve been given for guidance, would it not? I think this was not a bad suggestion on longing’s part.

Ummm I have looked and looked and looked. Wikipedia has romantic friendship listed under chastity in Catholicism, specifically separating “courtly love and romantic friendship,” but I’m not exactly going to trust Wikipedia on the issue. Almost everything I have found from the Magisterium has explicitly discussed sexual relationships as what is immoral, but this reverts back to the original topic of the thread, which is whether a romantic relationship must be sexual, and I don’t think it does have to.

I’m just confused as to why theologians or the Church wouldn’t address something so rampant in Western Europe throughout the first 1800-1900 years of the Church if it were gravely immoral . That would seem to fly in stark contrast to their rapid response to IVF, ABC, cloning, sterilization, etc. etc.

 

[Rau]

… Indeed if they were sexually aroused their catholic faith would demand of them to avoid it entirely…

by that standard, I’d have been unable to hold a girl’s hand at the movies!

 

[One_point]

by that standard, I’d have been unable to hold a girl’s hand at the movies!

If holding a girls hands at the movies aroused you sexually then you should have placed it right back, and not a moment after! I thought something like this should be beyond debate. Why on earth would you be knowingly arousing yourself sexually if you had any interest at all in dating chastely?

 

[estesbob]

Ummm I have looked and looked and looked. Wikipedia has romantic friendship listed under chastity in Catholicism, specifically separating “courtly love and romantic friendship,” but I’m not exactly going to trust Wikipedia on the issue. Almost everything I have found from the Magisterium has explicitly discussed sexual relationships as what is immoral, but this reverts back to the original topic of the thread, which is whether a romantic relationship must be sexual, and I don’t think it does have to.

I’m just confused as to why theologians or the Church wouldn’t address something so rampant in Western Europe throughout the first 1800-1900 years of the Church if it were gravely immoral . That would seem to fly in stark contrast to their rapid response to IVF, ABC, cloning, sterilization, etc. etc.

Probably because it wasn’t rampant in Western Europe for 1800-1900 years.

 

[SMGS127]

Probably because it wasn’t rampant in Western Europe for 1800-1900 years.

It was super rampant. There’s a plethora of evidence from the Renaissance and Victorian periods of these types of relationships, at the very least. So even if we took THOSE periods, they were still much longer than the response time for the Church to IVF.

 

[One_point]

Ummm I have looked and looked and looked. Wikipedia has romantic friendship listed under chastity in Catholicism, specifically separating “courtly love and romantic friendship,” but I’m not exactly going to trust Wikipedia on the issue. Almost everything I have found from the Magisterium has explicitly discussed sexual relationships as what is immoral, but this reverts back to the original topic of the thread, which is whether a romantic relationship must be sexual, and I don’t think it does have to.

I’m just confused as to why theologians or the Church wouldn’t address something so rampant in Western Europe throughout the first 1800-1900 years of the Church if it were gravely immoral . That would seem to fly in stark contrast to their rapid response to IVF, ABC, cloning, sterilization, etc. etc.

SMGS you never did show that these relationships were “rampant” for 1800 to 1900 years. Like I said in the other thread, if they were only hugging, kissing, sharing beds, which I’ve done always, I have no idea how modern people decided this was something more than the friendship it appeared. You pointed to I think Victorian England which wasn’t even Catholic so the idea that the church acquiesced in rampant same-sex reomantic relationships just hasn’t been established as fact. From the article you posted it was clear to me to be nothing more than modern projections into the past.

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS you never did show that these relationships were “rampant” for 1800 to 1900 years. Like I said in the other thread, if they were only hugging, kissing, sharing beds, which I’ve done always, I have no idea how modern people decided this was something more than the friendship it appeared. You pointed to I think Victorian England which wasn’t even Catholic so the idea that the church acquiesced in rampant same-sex reomantic relationships just hasn’t been established as fact. From the article you posted it was clear to me to be nothing more than modern projections into the past.

Ummm…I don’t have any online sources but:

amazon.com/Surpassing-Love-Men-Friendship-Renaissance/dp/0688133304

 

[Rau]

If holding a girls hands at the movies aroused you sexually then you should have placed it right back, and not a moment after! I thought something like this should be beyond debate. Why on earth would you be knowingly arousing yourself sexually if you had any interest at all in dating chastely?

Because the goal was not arousal, the risk of misbehavior in that environment was nil, the act was well-intentioned and to retract may have been hurtful. Did you manage to avoid every situation that might produce a erection prior to marriage?

 

[One_point]

Ummm…I don’t have any online sources but:

amazon.com/Surpassing-Love-Men-Friendship-Renaissance/dp/0688133304

Y’know, I just might just spare some change and buy that book! In the meantime, your wiki article from the other thread says this regarding the studies of the history of this alleged phenomenon:

*“The study of historical romantic friendship is difficult because the primary source material consists of writing about love relationships, which typically took the form of love letters, poems, or philosophical essays rather than objective studies.[2] Most of these do not explicitly state the sexual or nonsexual nature of relationships; the fact that homosexuality was taboo in Western European cultures at the time means that some sexual relationships may be hidden, but at the same time the rareness of romantic friendship in modern times means that references to nonsexual relationships may be misinterpreted, as alleged by Faderman, Coontz, Anthony Rotundo, Douglas Bush, and others.” *

This hardly seems like an established fact and a “rampant” phenomon at that. Clever guesses by modernists is more like it.

Also, from that same article:

The term romantic friendship refers to a very close but non-sexual relationship between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in the contemporary Western societies, and may include for example holding hands, hugging, kissing, and sharing a bed.

This is just differentiating modern standards of physical expressions of closeness between friends as opposed to old standards. These days, people in the Western world are less touchy feely with their friends. Come to Africa! Aint nothing special about this at all, you will soon learn We just do not French kiss our friends See this below from the same article:

The term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid 19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.

Also, the difference between these romantic friendships and romantic relationships absent of sex, same article:

Difference between romantic friendships and romantic relationships absent of sex[edit]

*Romantic friendships often indicate that both members have romantic feelings for each other, but are not in a committed relationship. This is different from a romantic relationship between two people who do not partake in sexual acts but have a fully committed relationship.

Asexual or celibate people often have romantic relationships without sex, or a couple may choose to have this type of relationship for a variety of reasons.

Contrasted with romantic relationships, romantic friendships tend to be free of commitment. It is socially acceptable to pursue romantic friendships with a variety of partners simultaneously.*

So not only does it NOT talk about making out but only simple acts that present cultures outside the West engage in normally between same sex friends (Ever seen two Arab men kiss each other one too many times?), it also separates romantic friendships from romantic relationships without sexual acts, and it seems you have been describing the latter while calling it the first (romantic friendship which apparently have nothing exclusive about them and appear to be nothing more than affectionate simple old friendships). Also, I am not sure that what they call romantic feelings is anything more than more expressive affection. From someone from my culture nothing here is remarkable in the least and it is nothing special. It is just friends in more physically expressive cultures.

 

[SMGS127]

Y’know, I just might just spare some change and buy that book! In the meantime, your wiki article from the other thread says this regarding the studies of the history of this alleged phenomenon:

*“The study of historical romantic friendship is difficult because the primary source material consists of writing about love relationships, which typically took the form of love letters, poems, or philosophical essays rather than objective studies.[2] Most of these do not explicitly state the sexual or nonsexual nature of relationships; the fact that homosexuality was taboo in Western European cultures at the time means that some sexual relationships may be hidden, but at the same time the rareness of romantic friendship in modern times means that references to nonsexual relationships may be misinterpreted, as alleged by Faderman, Coontz, Anthony Rotundo, Douglas Bush, and others.” *

This hardly seems like an established fact and a “rampant” phenomon at that. Clever guesses by modernists is more like it.

Also, from that same article:

The term romantic friendship refers to a very close but non-sexual relationship between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in the contemporary Western societies, and may include for example holding hands, hugging, kissing, and sharing a bed.

This is just differentiating modern standards of physical expressions of closeness between friends as opposed to old standards. These days, people in the Western world are less touchy feely with their friends. Come to Africa! Aint nothing special about this at all, you will soon learn We just do not French kiss our friends See this below from the same article:

The term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid 19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.

Also, the difference between these romantic friendships and romantic relationships absent of sex, same article:

Difference between romantic friendships and romantic relationships absent of sex[edit]

*Romantic friendships often indicate that both members have romantic feelings for each other, but are not in a committed relationship. This is different from a romantic relationship between two people who do not partake in sexual acts but have a fully committed relationship.

Asexual or celibate people often have romantic relationships without sex, or a couple may choose to have this type of relationship for a variety of reasons.

Contrasted with romantic relationships, romantic friendships tend to be free of commitment. It is socially acceptable to pursue romantic friendships with a variety of partners simultaneously*.

So not only does it NOT talk about making out but only simple acts that present cultures outside the West engage in normally between same sex friends (Ever seen two Arab men kiss each other one too many times?), it also separates romantic friendships from romantic relationships without sexual acts, and it seems you have been describing the latter while calling it the first (romantic friendship which apparently have nothing exclusive about them and appear to be nothing more than affectionate simple old friendships). Also, I am not sure that what they call romantic feelings is anything more than more expressive affection. From someone from my culture nothing here is remarkable in the least and it is nothing special. It is just friends in more physically expressive cultures.

Re: the Wikipedia article:

I was honestly surprised at a lot of the things it said. All the information I had ever learned about the history of human sexuality (and I took an entire course on it that was very balanced [even included ex-gays!]) included physicality in romantic friendships. So I don’t know why it was differentiated from “asexual romantic relationships.” I guess maybe the storge commitment wasn’t present and it was just agape physical romance without commitment? I suppose there’s nothing inherently immoral about that, but the problem in today’s day and age is that would seem to cause a massive amount of scandal. Like “look at her; she’s on her fifth girl this week!” . Even if it’s pure agape romance, I can’t POSSIBLY imagine how to avoid scandal with that. It’s much easier to avoid scandal with a live-in “roommate” than without a commitment.

 

[One_point]

Because the goal was not arousal, the risk of misbehavior in that environment was nil, the act was well-intentioned and to retract may have been hurtful. Did you manage to avoid every situation that might produce a erection prior to marriage?

My success is irrelevant. you were suggesting that the standard itself is bad or silly, as if the church doesn’t know what it is doing when it teaches us to avoid near occasions of sin. I have been told to guard my eyes and ears if I see things that induce the feelings you describe and I don’t see why holding hands should be any different. Thankfully, I have never been sexually aroused by such simple things as holding hands unless I was already in a sexual state of mind, Unless you have different standards of sin, I am pretty sure knowingly allowing yourself to be sexually aroused is impermissible for single Catholics. Accidents are a different matter.

 

[Rau]

My success is irrelevant. you were suggesting that the standard itself is bad or silly, as if the church doesn’t know what it is doing when it teaches us to avoid near occasions of sin. I have been told to guard my eyes and ears if I see things that induce the feelings you describe and I don’t see why holding hands should be any different. Thankfully, I have never been sexually aroused by such simple things as holding hands unless I was already in a sexual state of mind, Unless you have different standards of sin, I am pretty sure knowingly allowing yourself to be sexually aroused is impermissible for single Catholics. Accidents are a different matter.

Did you not read my post? I find movie theaters not to be conducive to the near occasion of sin, even when holding hands eek but hey, I was planning to watch the movie!

 

[One_point]

Did you not read my post? I find movie theaters not to be conducive to the near occasion of sin, even when holding hands eek but hey, I was planning to watch the movie!

Sexual thoughts can be entertained in a movie hall just as they can in a bedroom. They are also sins.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ummm I have looked and looked and looked. Wikipedia has romantic friendship listed under chastity in Catholicism, specifically separating “courtly love and romantic friendship,” but I’m not exactly going to trust Wikipedia on the issue. Almost everything I have found from the Magisterium has explicitly discussed sexual relationships as what is immoral, but this reverts back to the original topic of the thread, which is whether a romantic relationship must be sexual, and I don’t think it does have to.

I’m just confused as to why theologians or the Church wouldn’t address something so rampant in Western Europe throughout the first 1800-1900 years of the Church if it were gravely immoral . That would seem to fly in stark contrast to their rapid response to IVF, ABC, cloning, sterilization, etc. etc.

The Church has constantly addressed sexual immorality through Christian history right back to the very first Christian literature… the New Testament.

We are assured by Paul to the Romans that we can know what is good objectively.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” - Romans 1 18-20

It is only through seeking to indulge our disordered desires that the truth is obscured and we claim to be wise in knowledge whilst spreading falsehood.

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. **Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools **and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.” - Romans 1 21-23

Trying to rationalise the meaning of Gods words at the behest of our disordered desires classically results in a veil of lies clouding our mind and judgment, opening the door to all manner of sinful behaviour.

" Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." - Romans 1 24-27

Opening that door to sin a little bit leaves a portal of entry for further sin rushing to the aid of our passion to support its fight against truth.

“Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.” - Romans 1 28-31

And not only are we indicted by our own immoral acts… we are further impelled to promote the sin as acceptable for others.

" Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." - Rom 1 32

The truth is clear to the clear conscience, smgs.

God has made these things obvious in the light of a faithful, obedient and pure heart. They can be objectively known.

Romance has always been part of the mating process of human beings. If it is not ordered to that conjugal union, it is disordered and to be renounced.

Romance naturally engenders a desire for commitment and exclusivity in relationship.

It is the antithesis of ‘disinterested’ friendship which thrives on freedom from the binds only appropriate to the conjugal relationship.

Everyone by his own honest discernment knows the difference between the kisses and touches of lovers and the kisses and touches of friends. The line is clear.