P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Huh?
We were having a discussion about whether “homosexual acts” meant “oral sex”. Check the transcript.
I agree that the acts are disordered.
- Status
We were having a discussion about whether “homosexual acts” meant “oral sex”. Check the transcript.
I agree that the acts are disordered.
U
underacloud
Guest
Offering an argument (even if you think it’s a bad one) is proof that I’m rationalising sin? This is nonesense.
Yes, and I’ll remind you of the saying (as quoted by Pope John XXIII in the encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram):
“unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things”
Where there is doubt (and no clear teaching from mother Church), faithful Catholics enjoy liberty, and act in accord with their own consciences.
H
HeteroDoxical
Guest
The issue of if, or if not, homosexual sex is a sin, is really irrelevant to Christ on this topic. Sins are sins and are His province, ultimately. Romans 14 shows two men, doing the same act and it’s not a sin for one but is for the other. That would make me judging your sins problematic at best.
Further, GOD is the one who does the changing in a person. He changes our minds and souls… isn’t that in Isaiah?
Blessed are the poor in Spirit matt 5, the poor dependent, needy spirit that leans on God, which is what HE told the rich man he must do if he would be complete, or spiritually mature, lean on Him (Jesus).
1 JOhn 3:9 says it’s HIS SEED IN YOU that holds you true to your calling, and Gal 5:16 says it’s His Spirit that does. 1 John 5:18 says the one begat of God holds you to your calling. It’s not about us, but Him. So let HIM do His work.
Paul said it’s not our place to judge those outside the Church.
And there sure as hell is hot, is no place in scripture where the Church bypassed being involved with the people, the one’s it’s to love and provide for, and legislated against them, making the government take the place of the people.
But, that’s what we are trying to do now.
Jesus, the Christ, taught things that make this action undoubtedly Anti Christ.
If a man asks for your shirt give him your coat, as well. (*may have that backwards… but there is NO CONDITION to the statement, there is no do they sin, or are they lgbt determination.)
Further, the Christ commanded that your love, should be as perfect or complete as God’s, his Father’s was… the Christ described that as God loves His enemies, and that love PROVIDED FOR THEM.
The LGBT community comes to the Government, who has the right to determine who can legally marry in AMerica, and asked for protection under the law.
Why does the Church (for me that is all of us, prots and cats) make such a pickle out of it? Why can’t they just blindly follow Jesus teaching and let Jesus work out the details. He’s a big man, HE can handle it.
Ask Gideon… send all but 300 home and attack with kazoos and crockpots… like the Church today wouldn’t tell God he’s nuts and do it their way.
Further, GOD is the one who does the changing in a person. He changes our minds and souls… isn’t that in Isaiah?
Blessed are the poor in Spirit matt 5, the poor dependent, needy spirit that leans on God, which is what HE told the rich man he must do if he would be complete, or spiritually mature, lean on Him (Jesus).
1 JOhn 3:9 says it’s HIS SEED IN YOU that holds you true to your calling, and Gal 5:16 says it’s His Spirit that does. 1 John 5:18 says the one begat of God holds you to your calling. It’s not about us, but Him. So let HIM do His work.
Paul said it’s not our place to judge those outside the Church.
And there sure as hell is hot, is no place in scripture where the Church bypassed being involved with the people, the one’s it’s to love and provide for, and legislated against them, making the government take the place of the people.
But, that’s what we are trying to do now.
Jesus, the Christ, taught things that make this action undoubtedly Anti Christ.
If a man asks for your shirt give him your coat, as well. (*may have that backwards… but there is NO CONDITION to the statement, there is no do they sin, or are they lgbt determination.)
Further, the Christ commanded that your love, should be as perfect or complete as God’s, his Father’s was… the Christ described that as God loves His enemies, and that love PROVIDED FOR THEM.
The LGBT community comes to the Government, who has the right to determine who can legally marry in AMerica, and asked for protection under the law.
Why does the Church (for me that is all of us, prots and cats) make such a pickle out of it? Why can’t they just blindly follow Jesus teaching and let Jesus work out the details. He’s a big man, HE can handle it.
Ask Gideon… send all but 300 home and attack with kazoos and crockpots… like the Church today wouldn’t tell God he’s nuts and do it their way.
U
underacloud
Guest
Dante’s Inferno is not relevant. You contend that Church teaching has changed. Please offer these teachings, not contemporary works of fiction.
PS I’m not trying to defend anal sex as foreplay. There are others who would do so, but I’ll leave that particular topic aside.
H
HeteroDoxical
Guest
YOu can go back before The Holy Book of Dante and find anal sex quite common. That’s a fairly ignorant thing to say. They had anal sex in public baths in Rome and Roman cities. MEN with MEN and MEN with WOMEN.
U
underacloud
Guest
I think it’s hard to separate the two debates, but I am happy to try.
Homosexual relationships are not wrong simply because of the specific sex acts they choose. They are objectively disordered in themselves. We would not say that a homosexual relationship that avoided oral sex or anal sex was OK. There are other factors that make it disordered.
The Catechism describes for us that human sexuality has its end in the vocation of marriage. God has designed creation this way, that men and women marry each other and have babies. Homeosexual relationships go against this natural order. That is, fundamentally, why they are wrong.
Or to put it another way…we do not think that there is anything inherently sinful in kissing. When it’s between husband and wife it is a perfectly chaste activity. Yet between homosexuals it is disordered. So the act itself (kissing) is not immoral, it is the circumstances - being between two people who are not acting in accordance with God’s design for sexuality. So our Catholic witness against homosexuality is not against the specific activities, but against the general disordered nature of the relationship itself.
U
underacloud
Guest
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Just for fun - and for a more “conservative” perspective:
johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br52_sexual_lust.pdf
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.
)
johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br52_sexual_lust.pdf
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.
)
A
Amandil
Guest
"Underacloud:
Its no different than how it is common that the staunchest supporters of abortion “rights” are women who have had abortions.
Incredible that you would actually use that.
(Sigh)…Even if it was spelled out in the Catechism you’d find another way to shirk the issue by claiming that its unclear or not authoritative or some other nonsense.
Secondly, a conscience which is not informed is not trustworthy, and sin darkens the intellect.
Thirdly, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”(Rom 14:23).
IOW, if there’s any doubt as to the moral question of an act, if you do it without doing your due diligence to find out the answer to the question but “do it anyway”, you are in fact sinning."
I also suggest you read 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.
You are not your own. You do not own your body, so you have no right to decide for yourself what is ok for you to do, no matter what you think your “conscience” tells you.
No. Its called irony.
Its no different than how it is common that the staunchest supporters of abortion “rights” are women who have had abortions.
Wow. **That quote came from Desiderius Erasmus and was intended to foster unity in VALID questions of religious practice(e.g. when to celebrate Easter), not to be ripped out of context and used as justification for sexual sins! **
Incredible that you would actually use that.
(Sigh)…Even if it was spelled out in the Catechism you’d find another way to shirk the issue by claiming that its unclear or not authoritative or some other nonsense.
Secondly, a conscience which is not informed is not trustworthy, and sin darkens the intellect.
Thirdly, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”(Rom 14:23).
IOW, if there’s any doubt as to the moral question of an act, if you do it without doing your due diligence to find out the answer to the question but “do it anyway”, you are in fact sinning."
I also suggest you read 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.
You are not your own. You do not own your body, so you have no right to decide for yourself what is ok for you to do, no matter what you think your “conscience” tells you.
E
esieffe
Guest
The mouth was made for eating and talking, but I don’t think anyone objects to kissing their wife or even… [dare I say it] girlfriend. 
U
underacloud
Guest
Here is the context in which Pope John XXIII used it:
I hope you can see now why I quote this and how it relates directly to matters in which the Church has no clear teaching.
But it’s not spelled out. And this sort of rude post is unworthy of this discussion. I have stated clearly that I will submit to Church authority on this or any other issus.
Again, this is all begging the question. You accuse me of a sin that is nowhere established as a sin.
U
underacloud
Guest
Comparing the questionnable sin of oral stimulation to abortion and me to a supporter of abortion are uncalled for.
If you cannot leave such rudeness aside, please stop replying to my posts.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Quoting you to yourself is rude?
Oh well!
And how is it you are not also just another internet stranger?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
What is there about anal and oral sex that tells your conscience it is good for the body and for the soul of married partners?
A
Amandil
Guest
This is not a “religious controversy” in the context that JPXXIII is referring to. You’re in clear violation of the teaching of Scripture and Sacred Tradition as I cited from the Catechism and the Bible.
I’ve already explained why as you have refused to address.
The Church already has spoken, you’re beating around the bush.
“Rude”. That’s interesting. I’m sure that the Pharisees considered Jesus to be “rude” as well when He called them out for their hypocrisy.
I haven’t directly accused you of anything. I’m telling you that IF you are doing it that what you are doing is in fact sinful.
And no its not “begging the question” because I begin with the authority of the Church, not myself… Therefore it doesn’t need to be “spelled out” to the letter. Lust is defined as any sexual pleasure sought for itself isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
This includes oral sex and masturbation, mutual or otherwise.
It is explicitly defined as “disordered”, thus sinful. It is an offense against chastity.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
How do you distinguish oral and anal sex from masturbation, which is a sin?
In oral and anal sex the pleasure derived is by one person alone, a form of mutual masturbation.
By the way, you might seriously ask yourself why people here seem rude to you?
Do you not see your advocacy of oral and anal sex as even slightly weird for a Catholic?
Yes, many Catholics may practice it. Many Catholics also commit adultery too. Does that justify either?
A
Amandil
Guest
- If there is no question of if it is a sin or not, why do you call it a “questionable sin”? You bear witness against yourself.
- Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never compared the two. I was illustrating the common behavior of those who try to justify sin by rationalizing it.
- Calling me “rude” is your attempt to silence the discussion because you know what I’m saying is true.
U
underacloud
Guest
Amandil and Charlemagne III,
you both claim to speak based on the clear teaching of the Church that oral stimulation as foreplay to marital intercourse is prohibited. Please provide this clear authoritative teaching. That is all you need to do to resolve the argument. I happily submit to all clear and authoritative teachings.
you both claim to speak based on the clear teaching of the Church that oral stimulation as foreplay to marital intercourse is prohibited. Please provide this clear authoritative teaching. That is all you need to do to resolve the argument. I happily submit to all clear and authoritative teachings.
A
Amandil
Guest
Lust is defined as any sexual pleasure sought for itself isolated from it’s unitive and procreative purposes."
What part of “any” is unclear?
Does oral sex or masturbation meet both the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual pleasure according to natural law?
No.
Thus they are not licit but illicit acts, they are immoral and thus sinful.
The Church shouldn’t need to define everything to the enth degree and draw pictures for you for something to be morally obligatory.
U
underacloud
Guest
Foreplay is not isolated from the purposes of sex. It fulfills them by making sex more unitive (more nejoyable) and prepares it for being potentially procreative.
Oral sex that is not part of a completed marital act is of course wrong. It fails to be open to procreation. But oral forplay does not do this. It is perfectly acceptable, and many theologians will agree.
Again, you fail to show clear Church teaching of that which you claim. You offer an argument, based on certian teachings. But others will make arguments based on those same teachings that disagree. Which leads naturally back to the liberty that John XXIII reminds us of.
Oh, and please don’t yell at me.
Oral sex that is not part of a completed marital act is of course wrong. It fails to be open to procreation. But oral forplay does not do this. It is perfectly acceptable, and many theologians will agree.
Again, you fail to show clear Church teaching of that which you claim. You offer an argument, based on certian teachings. But others will make arguments based on those same teachings that disagree. Which leads naturally back to the liberty that John XXIII reminds us of.
Oh, and please don’t yell at me.
- Status