Please clarify

  • Thread starter Thread starter anothertrekker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
beeliner said:
What is ridiculous is your entire theory.

What about monks in a monastery? Couldn’t the same assertion be made?

Also, the poster didn’t even specify that they were homosexuals.

Also, what about unmarried heterosexual couples, like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila or St. Francis of Assisi and St. Clare?

Are we to be suspicious of their relationships also?
Click to expand...
I acknowledge that I have read this post. Beyond that, it does not dignify a response.
 
DysonSphere said:
What premises do you use in order to determine that this hypothetical situation is impossible? What is the structure of your argument?
Click to expand...
You are not Catholic, you are a self-proclaimed agnostic. Therefore you have no horse in this race as this is a issue about morality. As a former atheist, I know that you have nothing to base morality on. Since you have nothing on which to affix or direct a moral judgment I do not see a need to address your comments.

If you want to start making comments about about moral judgments, please first qualify your comments so that we can understand how someone who rejects objective morality (essential to being an atheist or agnostic) can make moral judgments or address any other type of ethical questions.
 
anothertrekker said:
Well, this world is becoming more narrow minded (IMHO) and both of you may just be labeled as partners just because you are living together in a house both of you bought. 🤷
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t make a stitch of difference to me. 😃 The people who matter to me would know that’s not the case, and the people who don’t matter to me can’t hurt me with their opinions and remarks. Eh!
 
benidict said:
according to scripture, some have chosen to become eunics for the kingdom of heaven. husbands and wives living chosen celebate lives is covered in the scripture if im not mistaken. so… no. peace.
Click to expand...
You are misinterpreting this Scripture. Marriage is oriented towards the procreation of children. A couple who attempt Marriage with the full intention to never have children do so invalidly. A person can choose to remain celibate and un-married for the sake of the Kingdom.

Begin in the Catechism at 1601
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
You are misinterpreting this Scripture. Marriage is oriented towards the procreation of children. A couple who attempt Marriage with the full intention to never have children do so invalidly. A person can choose to remain celibate and un-married for the sake of the Kingdom.

Begin in the Catechism at 1601
Click to expand...
What is the Catholic view of couples who marry with the intent of never having children, or of having only one, but with the commitment to never have intercourse?

I am thinking of Mary and Joseph.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
You are misinterpreting this Scripture. Marriage is oriented towards the procreation of children. A couple who attempt Marriage with the full intention to never have children do so invalidly. A person can choose to remain celibate and un-married for the sake of the Kingdom.

Begin in the Catechism at 1601
Click to expand...
i appreciate the correction. will restudy. being single myself, i really dont study too much about marriage. so yes i believe you are right. i did misinterpret. :o thank you again. peace 🙂
 
rpp said:
That they abstain from sexual activity is ridiculous in this circumstance. It is more reasonable for a person to think they, like all sexual deviants, lie about their sexual activity. That sexual deviants would abstain from sexual activity is just not believable. Therefore, even if your hypothetical sexual deviants abstain from sexual activity, since no one would reasonably believe that they actually do abstain, they commit the grave sin of scandal.

Please, if you want to ask hypothetical questions, at least choose reasonable or possible circumstances. This one is neither reasonable nor possible.
Click to expand...
Please provide proof. You are providing a very strong opinion, but without proof, it is nothing more than that, an opinion.
 
rpp said:
You are not Catholic, you are a self-proclaimed agnostic. Therefore you have no horse in this race as this is a issue about morality. As a former atheist, I know that you have nothing to base morality on. Since you have nothing on which to affix or direct a moral judgment I do not see a need to address your comments.

If you want to start making comments about about moral judgments, please first qualify your comments so that we can understand how someone who rejects objective morality (essential to being an atheist or agnostic) can make moral judgments or address any other type of ethical questions.
Click to expand...
I’m a Catholic and I want an answer to this very good question.
 
DysonSphere said:
What is the Catholic view of couples who marry with the intent of never having children, or of having only one, but with the commitment to never have intercourse?

I am thinking of Mary and Joseph.
Click to expand...
The Blessed Virgin and Joseph were Married under Jewish Law of the time. Not the same as Catholic Canon Law today. A Marriage entered into with the intent to never have intercourse or even have children, (different from not being able to conceive children) is invalid. The two ends of Marriage are Unity and Pro-creation. If either of those two elements are missing, the Marriage can be declared null, due to defect of consent to fully give of oneself to the other.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
The Blessed Virgin and Joseph were Married under Jewish Law of the time. Not the same as Catholic Canon Law today. A Marriage entered into with the intent to never have intercourse or even have children, (different from not being able to conceive children) is invalid. The two ends of Marriage are Unity and Pro-creation. If either of those two elements are missing, the Marriage can be declared null, due to defect of consent to fully give of oneself to the other.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clear answer. I have received contrary information from other Catholics about this, which is why I ask.

I do have another couple questions, though, if you would. If Mary and Joseph’s marriage, by Catholic Canon Law, would be considered invalid, would this be because they did not consent to fully give “oneself to the other”? Would this be because of Mary’s (and Joseph’s) consecrating their life to God in perpetual virginity?
 
rpp said:
You are not Catholic, you are a self-proclaimed agnostic. Therefore you have no horse in this race as this is a issue about morality. As a former atheist, I know that you have nothing to base morality on. Since you have nothing on which to affix or direct a moral judgment I do not see a need to address your comments.
Click to expand...
A very brusque statement, indeed! It seems still founded upon a potentially bad premise. How would you conclude that, simply because you were an atheist and had no moral basis, that no atheists or agnostics have or can have a moral basis? I don’t see how this necessarily follows.

If you do not wish to answer my questions, I don’t want to pressure you. I’m simply curious about understanding better those whose beliefs are different from my own.
If you want to start making comments about about moral judgments, please first qualify your comments so that we can understand how someone who rejects objective morality (essential to being an atheist or agnostic) can make moral judgments or address any other type of ethical questions.
Click to expand...
I do not reject objective morality. I was not aware that this was essential to being an agnostic or atheist. If you’d like to discuss further why this would be essential to agnosticism or atheism, I would be happy to engage you in the matter on another thread. Would you like me to start one?
 
I also wanted to add that my main concern with RPP’s statement was not a moral one.

I wonder how he knows it would be impossible for two gay men or women to live together and not enter into relations. I did not wonder why he thinks it is immoral; I have a relatively good understanding of basic Catholic ethics.
 
DysonSphere said:
Thank you for the clear answer. I have received contrary information from other Catholics about this, which is why I ask.

I do have another couple questions, though, if you would. If Mary and Joseph’s marriage, by Catholic Canon Law, would be considered invalid, would this be because they did not consent to fully give “oneself to the other”? Would this be because of Mary’s (and Joseph’s) consecrating their life to God in perpetual virginity?
Click to expand...
As I understand the Canon Law commentaries on Marriage, yes. (I am not a Canon Lawyer) The current canon law does not permit a person who has taken Perpetual Vows of virginity or celibacy to enter into Marriage validly.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
As I understand the Canon Law commentaries on Marriage, yes. (I am not a Canon Lawyer) The current canon law does not permit a person who has taken Perpetual Vows of virginity or celibacy to enter into Marriage validly.
Click to expand...
Alright. Well, you are a religious, so I’d take your word over everyone else I’ve heard things from.

Thank you very much for your answers.
 
cecilia97 said:
As a single woman, frankly, I can see myself entering a practical living relationship with a female friend in the future. If I am unmarried at age 65, for instance, I don’t see what would be wrong with buying a house with or renting to a dear girlfriend who is in similar circumstances…so we can help each other into old age. There doesn’t have to be anything sexual about a living arrangement.
Click to expand...
Amen, sister! And so it should be for two men in similar circumstances. Many people are scandalized because they chose to be so. We used to call these people busybodies. There are numerous widows and widowers out there whose kids don’t want them living with them. Economics being what they are why shouldn’t good friends of the same sex before or after marriage or even if never married share a household? 👍🙂
 
rwoehmke said:
Amen, sister! And so it should be for two men in similar circumstances. Many people are scandalized because they chose to be so. We used to call these people busybodies. There are numerous widows and widowers out there whose kids don’t want them living with them. Economics being what they are why shouldn’t good friends of the same sex before or after marriage or even if never married share a household? 👍🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks, rwoehmke!

Your post raises an important point: our society is so permeated with sex that it can be easy to see it EVERYWHERE. We tend to see what we’re expecting to find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top