Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter naomily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grace & Peace!
The CCC says that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered. You are the one who has misrepresented the CCC.
Again, I challenge you to explain to me how any attraction or inclination (including the homosexual inclination) can be morally evaluated without reference to the specific object of the attraction or inclination.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Grace & Peace!

Again, I challenge you to explain to me how any attraction or inclination (including the homosexual inclination) can be morally evaluated without reference to the specific object of the attraction or inclination.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
that object is inclined to by that attraction even if not immediately.🤷 the attraction is facing in the direction of that object. inclination.
 
You will still sometimes see two male close friends showing public display of affection that would make an American shiver in some Catholic countries and areas. You will even still see friends being bonded for life in what could only be described as romance.
Being a non American I know of what it is you speak. in many cultures, men kiss each other on the cheeck or even lips as a form of greeting like women do. but “kiss” here is a simple peck. not a slow passionate kiss involving sticking one’s tounge inside another’s mouth and taking in in each others breathes while standing so close! If you are claiming that the latter has been a normal way for men or women to express friendship in ANY culture really I would like to see proof!
 
Grace & Peace!

Again, I challenge you to explain to me how any attraction or inclination (including the homosexual inclination) can be morally evaluated without reference to the specific object of the attraction or inclination.
As living creatures we are subject to nature and as human beings we are subject to Gods will. By nature, outside any cultural or religious influence, living things are ordered to procreate. Males are attracted to females by chemistry. There is a process of courting or ritual seduction that excites the bodies by which nature takes over to bind together their hearts, their bodies and their fertile gifts (semen, ova). So by nature our inclinations are ordered towards this interplay. That interplay is objectively ordered.

If our inclinations are not towards this natural interplay but towards a fundamentally barren interplay of heart/body/fertile gift… this is objectively disordered. We are to avoid succumbing to that inclination reserved by nature and God for the driving force of procreation… and divert our passions with grace and prayer, to the spiritual life, preserving our human relationships as disinterested friendships.
 
Okay, this is more like it.

The term “romantic friendship” describes a kind of life-long love of philia and agape between two people (regardless of sex, but it was most commonly between two men or two women), and the expression has changed over time. The specific activities of specific couples are not interesting to me - but kissing was definitely part of many of them. However, the emotional bond, together with the existence of “activities” not generally extended to acquaintances or what we today call “friends”, was more or less constant.
That is brotherly love such as existed between David and Jonathan or Jesus and the Apostle John and it knows no exclusivity! It is what we call “best friends” nothing but close friends. What activities do people in romantic friendship engage in that “aquaintances” such as “best friends” do not?🤷
 
As living creatures we are subject to nature and as human beings we are subject to Gods will. By nature, outside any cultural or religious influence, living things are ordered to procreate. Males are attracted to females by chemistry. There is a process of courting or ritual seduction that excites the bodies by which nature takes over to bind together their hearts, their bodies and their fertile gifts (semen, ova). So by nature our inclinations are ordered towards this interplay. That interplay is objectively ordered.

If our inclinations are not towards this natural interplay but towards a fundamentally barren interplay of heart/body/fertile gift… this is objectively disordered. We are to avoid succumbing to that inclination reserved by nature and God for the driving force of procreation… and divert our passions with grace and prayer, to the spiritual life, preserving our human relationships as disinterested friendships.
you have gift of language I don’t have and you use it very well to express what are plain truths of life. very well done.
 
No, it means “has as its goal”: The inclination is “objectively disordered” when it has genital activity as its goal.

I am aware of and fully understand that words like “orientation”, “objectively” and (especially) “disordered” are words that are difficult for English speakers, because the words are used daily with slightly different meanings than they have in theology. However, I would recommend that you consider whether you could be wrong.

In theology, these terms are used to consider the teleology of things (including actions and inclinations). The language is rather exact - exactly to avoid painting things with bigger brushes than needed. You do as Mark says overreach - the texts speak only of the orientation towards sexual acts, not of the orientation towards romantic relationships or “romantic acts”. I know that in our time this distinction has been erased, but it is nonetheless a real, existing and very Catholic distinction.
I will ask you what has been avoided by the other apologists for this thing: what is the “goal” as you put it of this attraction? When it occurs naturally as it should between boy and girl, what is it’s goal? why do you consider this goal to shift when the same attraction occurs in same-sex couples? It is plain that this attraction is ordered towards bringing the sexes together as male and female for the purposes of mating. it therefore has as its goal that conjugal union. Either we reveal what is nature’s (or God’s) goal for creating this attraction between the sexes apart from mating or you are claiming that what homosexuals experience is something of a totally different nature to begin with. Inclination does not have to be immediate. it means the general orientation of something. and I would like to know what is this attraction generally directed towards in nature if not sex? I don’t care if the person experiencing it is then thinking of having sex with the other. you have said the goal is what matters and I agree 100% what is the goal of this “inclination” or attraction?🤷
 
My “shooting down SMGS’ posts” as you suggested was in response to her bringing up “Romantic Friendships” . My whole bone of contention with her posts was aimed at this specific claim. Namely, that two homosexuals living together, “making out” “cuddling together” sleeping in the same bed together, is licit in the eyes of the RCC. And you seem to agree. And you also stated that CAF Apologists are not authoritative and their replies are not always accurate. But in the following thread; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564289 Michelle Arnold had this to say in her reply; “For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.” This in my view is in keeping with Church teaching. What SMGS127 is proposing in the bolded above, is not! And I would argue from the hilltops that it certainly isn’t licit in the views of the RCC teachings on sexual morality. On the bolded above…what say you, licit or not?

I agree with Ms. Arnold on this one as amazed as I am to admit it. It’s like an alcoholic living in the back room of a liquor store–and regardless what anyone says, they are deluding themselves if they think that “making out” doesn’t have a sexual component to it.
***Peace, Mark ***
 
SMGS has provided examples when it comes to the practice of kissing.

I’ve observed such public display of affection in several countries in Southern Europe.

As to friends being bonded for life in a romance-like way, I wouldn’t really have to go much farther than my hometown. I’m afraid no study was done on them, so I don’t have a link…
I don’t see anything to indicate and validate your statement of “definite”. Nothing supplied and certainly not within the Church accepted by Priests, Bishops… You have no example-none!
Fraternal love has always been seen as a higher standard than erotic love in Catholic theology, and celibacy has always (though less so recently) been seen as a higher calling than marriage in Catholic theology. These are not merely assumptions, but rather commonly accepted observations…
Your not saying nothing new and you still haven’t proved your point. And no chaste and celibacy is well defined. And indicates nothing close to your understanding.
Still though, if my statements above were assumptions (which I’ve now pointed out they aren’t), how did they compare to assuming that I’m on the edge of some demise, assuming that I’m advocating hedonism, or in the case of Longing, assuming that I’m (I suspect she meant me and not Rau) not genuine, or don’t want to be challenged (which is absurd - I would not pick out CAF as the place to not be challenged on this…), or untruthful?.
Hedonism is mentioned by the Vatican in relation to the modern thinking on SSA and a selective group who embraces this like thinking. Its been linked and by me.

You haven’t pointed anything out. You stated definite and made no attempt to prove your point. You provided nothing but assumption and a taken liberty to elaborate on what the Church never stated nor is there any example provided by the elect.
What you’re attempting now is called the tu quoque fallacy - and it is always tempting, since it’s always true. But it’s really just a way to divert attention.
Nonsense you have no data to back up your claim, its illusion of the mind, a stretch of the imagination. It does not exist anywhere in Church teaching, never has, never will, and there is no definite proof to validate your point. Its really that simple. Reality isn’t the way you would like things to be, and thats all your proposing. In fact as far as Church history there is a continuity of critical thinking and condemnation on SS. To the point of actually being uncharitable. Lets not talk falsely.
 
Attitudes like the one that prefers to believe that the CDF, Card.Ratzinger and the official Papal office make grammatical errors and mistranslate documents, when you can’t fit them to your opinion… leave me suspicious and curiously alert to what motivates that.
The Latin is the authoritative text, when it and the vernacular version are in conflict the Latin version is correct.
 
SMGS has provided examples when it comes to the practice of kissing, fraternal love, advocating hedonism
“In this context certain educators, teachers and moralists have been able to contribute to a better understanding and integration into life of the values proper to each of the sexes; on the other hand there are those who have put forward concepts and modes of behavior which are contrary to the true moral exigencies of the human person. Some members of the latter group have even gone so far as to favor a licentious hedonism.”

All the above points have been addressed and here…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Froman_curia%2Fcongregations%2Fcfaith%2Fdocuments%2Frc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html&ei=c52_U6uDEK3b8gGIx4C4Dg&usg=AFQjCNGwNqxJRZRRzcsbaK2xANENUWb7Sw

NOTE- Genital acts are in relation to marriage, they are not talking about genital act with SS

"Today there are many who vindicate the right to sexual union before marriage, at least in those cases where a firm intention to marry and an affection which is already in some way conjugal in the psychology of the subjects require this completion, which they judge to be connatural. This is especially the case when the celebration of the marriage is impeded by circumstances or when this intimate relationship seems necessary in order for love to be preserved.

This opinion is contrary to Christian doctrine, which states that every genital act must be within the framework of marriage."
 
(This was first posted in the wrong thread… embarrassing mistake, but oh well. Here goes: )

Gary, you’re still twisting my words, but I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally. I will however not continue this.

To everyone else - this may not be on topic, but I don’t need the attention given by making a new thread:

CAF has become a near occasion of sin for me recently. The sins of anger and of despair, and of losing hope in God. Being on CAF weakens my faith, and my relationship to God, and the Church. I will therefore now withdraw, at least for now.

The thing with CAF, is that I here encounter a form of Catholicism I didn’t even knew existed. A form of Catholicism where one professes to cookie cutter solutions to difficult problems (a trait I’ve seen among many Evangelicals and Fundamentalist, but not from one single Catholic priest in real life). A form of Catholicism where interpretation of teaching is confused for teaching itself, and where anyone who does not agree to said interpretation is painted as heterodox. A form of Catholicism where even suggesting that the translator of a document may have made a poor choice of words, is seen as scandalous and narcissistic (!), because the original document, in Latin, was prepared by CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (who still happens to be my hero). I’m sorry, but exposure to this form of Catholicism strains my relationship with real-world Catholicism. And I won’t have that.

Additionally, episodes like the one yesterday are simply not good for my health. This morning, I woke up with post-traumatic flashbacks of being laughed at by the entire class in primary school. And that was exactly what happened here yesterday - people latched on to a small detail of my argument, and used that to ridicule the essence. On top of that, I was barraged with some rather grave accusations about my person and intents, constantly, by people with no interest in actually discussing the essence of my arguments. The behavior I was exposed to by others last night, can only be called harassment and bullying, and I won’t have it. While yesterday was by far the most extreme incident of this sort, it is not the first, and I will not have this place destroy my health. I have said earlier that I pray that people who are thinner skinned than me don’t find CAF - I’m sorry to say my skin isn’t thick enough either. I get mental images of howling wolves and circling vultures just by thinking of this site.

I do however wish to thank those of you who have shown me support during my now around half a year on CAF, to those of you I’ve learned from, to those of you who have seen me as a person. You know who you are, and I’m grateful. Please keep writing - your posts literally save lives, and I will pray that you are given strength to carry on.

I also wish to thank those of you with whom I may disagree most of the time, but who are also respectful and honest, and open to actually consider what other people have to say. Some of you may know who you are, some of you may not. I’ve learned much from many of you, and please know I respect your opinions - as I’ve had to say over and over again, I have nothing against being disagreed with or challenged, my issue is with speaking to walls, or worse, being harassed. I commend you for being honest “opponents”, for keeping your posts civil, and for simply being good people. It is because of people like you, people with whom one can have honest debates (and disagreements, but still go out for drinks after), that I find the social climate in the real-life Church so giving. Please keep writing, too.

Lastly, to those of you who are after nothing but demonstrating your own mistaken sense of orthodoxy, to those of you who use rude language about other people under the cover of being “traditional”, to those of you who stick to pseudoscience as if it were Catholic doctrine, to those of you who I simply wish never meet a gay or transgender person (or worse, get a child in such a situation) in your lives: Shame on you. You are the reason why I sometimes think the Church would be better off without the Internet. Your attitudes are the reason for so much suffering, so many tears, so much death, so many souls who will never even consider the actual message of the Church because of injuries from people like you, that just even thinking of it makes me sick. They are attitudes I almost haven’t seen since I left my childhood, Bible-belt, fundamentalist Protestantism behind, and I am ashamed to have to admit that these attitudes seemingly exist among Catholics too.

I have now unsubscribed from all threads I was subscribed to, and I will not check back, after I’ve posted this. I am however not deleting my account, in case somebody wants to PM me. I could return in the future, I could not. At least this is the last you will see of me in a (preferably long) while.

I wish you all the best of luck in your life, and I will pray for you and for CAF.
 
When the goal of your argument, is to legitimise and promote as Catholic, homosexual romantic, sexually and/or sensually intimate, commitment based, exclusive relationships that imitate marriage whether sex is claimed to be absent or not… you must surely expect a strong Catholic chastity based defense. That surely cannot surprise you.
 
When the goal of your argument, is to legitimise and promote as Catholic, homosexual romantic, sexually and/or sensually intimate, commitment based, exclusive relationships that imitate marriage whether sex is claimed to be absent or not… you must surely expect a strong Catholic chastity based defense. That surely cannot surprise you.
Come on LongingSoul, you know for a fact no one was promoting sexually intimate or sensually intimate relationships or marital-like relationships. That’s inappropriate to include.
 
LongingSoul,

Rin did not take offense to your comments about sexuality or relationships – or if she took offense, she did not express that offense. She took offense to statements like this:
I’m so flabbergasted by the sheer narcissism of it all
This sort of comment is hard to reconcile with the ways of relating recommended in the New Testament. For example, Phillipians 2:
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
I am utterly at a loss as to how accusing a person of narcissism could involve looking to the interests of the person.
 
Come on LongingSoul, you know for a fact no one was promoting sexually intimate or sensually intimate relationships or marital-like relationships. That’s inappropriate to include.
You have admitted on several occasions that what you are promoting ie. french kissing and cuddling, commitment, exclusivity in the way of at least a marriagable couple, comes from your personal supposed ability to completely detach this intimacy from your own homosexual tendencies. It is a union that imitates the marriagable union in every way apart from the supposed lack of sex but is a fantasy outside the Catholic understanding of chastity and ‘disinterested’ friendship.
 
you know for a fact
Hey you guys presented a decent opposition and with little to work with from what I see and on a few threads. The question isn’t if its plausible. However, when a new higher standard of chaste is presented as such, plausible fell sloppy dead. Just saying that adds a stretch to what already has been stretched.
 
LongingSoul,

Rin did not take offense to your comments about sexuality or relationships – or if she took offense, she did not express that offense. She took offense to statements like this:

“I’m so flabbergasted by the sheer narcissism of it all”

This sort of comment is hard to reconcile with the ways of relating recommended in the New Testament. For example, Phillipians 2:

I am utterly at a loss as to how accusing a person of narcissism could involve looking to the interests of the person.
I did not accuse the person. I addressed the persons argument. Saying that a clarification by the CDF was a grammatical error and translated wrongly by the Papal offices, has never and will never make a credible argument. Imagine saying that about any part of Catholic doctrine. We could legitimise abortion, contraception… whatever we like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top