Sexuality through Evangelization

[Elijah_Baley]

In conversation with a fellow Catholic, she long since lapsed from the faith, we discussed the issue of homosexual marriage, myself taking the Catholic view and she taking the popular one. We came to the point where we agreed that the linchpin of her belief in a licit homosexual marriage is because while she believes that sex has the two purposes discussed in Humanae Vitae, sex does not need require both at once for it to be morally permissible.

That is to say, while she understands that sex both provides a bond between husband and wife and produces children, in situations where children are impossible it should still be permissible for it to provide a bond. I pointed out that unnatural sterility — vasectomies, etc. — represents a positive action to prevent one of the purposes of sexuality, and so obtaining one is clearly wrong. Subsidiary point: Because natural sterility, on the other hand, does not represent a positive action it’s OK with the context of a marriage. I think I opened the door to the defense of homosexuality as something equally natural, etc., but there must be some other serious flaw to my argument also.

As she explained it, this and a few other liberal-identified issues are the reason she no longer has faith in “this particular hierarchy” and, therefore, the validity of the whole of the teachings of Catholic Church. (Interesting: She has faith in the idea of a hierarchy and believes it is needed, but not in the current incarnation. We didn’t take this much further, and I think if we did I have an idea.)

How should I help elucidate Church teaching for her? Also, where could I bone up on the natural law argument against acts of homosexuality?

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
Arguing,arguing,arguin,(2 Tim 2:14 and 23) how I dislike arguing about matters that are crystal clear.
A marrige between a man and a woman is the only valid form of marriage. For reasons I don’t think I need to explain that is the only form that is right.
I wont go in to details,but here in Finland our Luterian church had a TV-program,one of those where there are people from to sides and both think they are right. I did not look at it because everything past 10 PM is bedtime for me. However,it ended up rather bad,depending on wich side one takes,to this day almost 10.000 members of the Lutherian church has left it,and only because the church,who is,to put it diplomatic and understanding,wery liberal,you know,female priest,even a woman as a bishop here in Helsinki dioce,did not want to marrie people from the same sex. Well,I have nothing bad to say about the Lutherian church,“those who are whit us is not against us”,and I once wos a Lutherian,I am converted to the Catholic faith,reason: I cant belong to a church who goes against the Bible,and a call to become a Catholic priest,wich I wont be,age and health issues,but the call is in me,and I use it to help people the best I can,and no,I don’t think I am a priest,but back to the point. The Lutherian church has nothing about people of the same sex register their “marriage”,but not in the church,I see all this as the end of the Lutherian Church,they have one thing to do,follow the Bible,and that is my advice in all issues that has remotly something to do whit faith,FOLLOW THE BIBLE! And that can’t be so hard.

 

[1ke]

Dr. Janet Smith has a book on the error of proportionality, which is the basis of her line of thinking. Although, I’ve never heard it applied to same sex “marriage.”

 

[PJM]

=Elijah Baley;7172350]In conversation with a fellow Catholic, she long since lapsed from the faith, we discussed the issue of homosexual marriage, myself taking the Catholic view and she taking the popular one. We came to the point where we agreed that the linchpin of her belief in a licit homosexual marriage is because while she believes that sex has the two purposes discussed in Humanae Vitae, sex does not need require both at once for it to be morally permissible.

That is to say, while she understands that sex both provides a bond between husband and wife and produces children, in situations where children are impossible it should still be permissible for it to provide a bond. I pointed out that unnatural sterility — vasectomies, etc. — represents a positive action to prevent one of the purposes of sexuality, and so obtaining one is clearly wrong. Subsidiary point: Because natural sterility, on the other hand, does not represent a positive action it’s OK with the context of a marriage. I think I opened the door to the defense of homosexuality as something equally natural, etc., but there must be some other serious flaw to my argument also.

As she explained it, this and a few other liberal-identified issues are the reason she no longer has faith in “this particular hierarchy” and, therefore, the validity of the whole of the teachings of Catholic Church. (Interesting: She has faith in the idea of a hierarchy and believes it is needed, but not in the current incarnation. We didn’t take this much further, and I think if we did I have an idea.)

How should I help elucidate Church teaching for her? Also, where could I bone up on the natural law argument against acts of homosexuality?

It is a position held out of both personal desire that it be true, and objectively, a desnial that it is not.

God states very clearly in the first book of the bible “go forth and mutiply” which explains God’s very and primary purpose fo our sexuality.[Gen 1:26-27]

Like our minds, intellects and freewills; this gift of sexuallity is given for very precise reasons.

Further the bible and God are very explict about the position of homosexualty being an “intrincinct evil.” Meaning each and every time without regard to reasons or conditions. It is an evil act because it is an unnatuarl act NOT intended by God.

 

[mcrow]

Any attempt to justify gay marriage or homosexual lifestyle in the context of being Catholic is so completely impossible that it’s not worth even listening to.

The Bible makes it very clear

Lev 20:13:

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..”

This simple act of homosexual relations is a serious sin, much less marriage.

This is one of those topics that you cannot be Catholic (IMO) and disagree with.

So, if you don’t believe in this statement I don’t see how anyone could stay Catholic. It’s a subject that most people fall on one side or the other on, not too much middle ground.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

While I agree, this answer doesn’t help me explain things to her and this attitude would drive her only further away from the faith.