What is NATURAL in sexual desires as stated in the Catechism?

[Blade_and_Blood]

Well… if we throw all religion violently out the window, all sexual desires regardless of gender are natural. Sexual orientation is far too complex for any of it to be unnatural.

If you want to explain it in Catholic terms: Any sex or sexual desire that does not lead to conception and/or *can *be clinically harmful to the body is unnatural.

I hope that helps.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[jfhh]

The church needs to use new words to define homosexual desires so as not to confuse the very people she wishes to educate on the subject.
Frankie

No she doesn’t nor do you. People can use words however they please. Some ways are useful and enlightening than others but ultimately it is just useful convention. I am deeply discouraged in terms of my faith in human intelligence when I see both homosexuals and Catholics and Christians and Americans buying into this notion for ex. that the debate about homosexual marriage is about wanting to keep the definition of a word the same. Um … then people should protesting the dictionary word usage committees that decide to change the definition of the word in those dictionaries. Changing the definition of a word is absolutely in and of itself of no consequence whatseover to the faith or to anything at all. In statutory law, definitions are crafted on the fly all the time. For example, in most statutory law, “state” is defined for the purposes of the statute to include U.S. territories and not just the several sovereign 50 states. Should Virginia than be protestanting such laws saying that those laws redefine statehood and that Guam deserves no statehood?! Of course not. (I am for legal recognition of homosexual unions btw and I could care less what word the law uses to designate them anymore than I care that most statutes refer to Guam as a state!)

Anyway, please address the substance of the issues. Technically you could argue that sociologically it is better for the church to use more familiar terms and usage. But that’s a sociologically discussion, a political discussion, not a moral theology discussion. There are terms the church uses that aren’t even in most dictionaries even unabridged ones. For example, epikeia. There’s no alternative word in the English language for it.

You know in mathematics, they just say “Let …” and be done with it. Let’s all of us not be so hung up over a word. Words are tools used to communicate concepts. If we disagree truly it will be a disagreement about the concepts not whether we as a society should use this or that word to denote this or that concept (that maybe a worthy political debate, a worthy linguistic debate, but it’s not a debate about the actual issue of homosexuality)

 

[jfhh]

I don’t see any correct definition of “natural” here. (I only read a few posts).

Natural human desire means a desire proper to human nature.

Natural angelic desire would mean a desire proper to angelic nature.

“Human nature” means, the state of being that humans are meant to be in. Etc.

So when homosexual desires are said to be unnatural, all it means is that humans because they are humans (possess human nature), are not meant to have them.

No science, no mathematics disproves that. No logic disproves that.

I admire your attempt in its spirited logic, but it falls short.

 

[frankieschatz1]

A person with a malfunctioning digestive system may be inclined to vomit even though vommitting is not natural.

Your analogy above describing what is natural or unnatural is so bad that I had to laugh. Vomiting is as natural a response to digestive problems as coughing and sneezing is to lung problems.
Without the natural ability to vomit, cough or sneeze we would can, at worst, die of the digestive or lung problem, or, at least, have it hang on a lot long than desired.

I am sorry, but the rest of your argument was just as shaky, though, you had some good points to share. Do remember, that if the premise of ones argument is untenable, the conclusion, no matter how logical sounding, is still untenable.

We Catholics believe that the ends must justify the means. We can’t use just any means (in this case wrong analogies, half truths and illogical arguments) to get the end we want no matter how moral that end may be.

 

[JPUSC]

Read the Catholic Church’s teaching here:
couragerc.org/
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0087.html
cathmed.org/publications/openletter.htm

Q. Why are homosexual attractions considered “objectively disordered”? Isn’t that a harsh term?

A. The term “objective disorder” is a philosophical term. It is used to describe homosexual attractions because such attractions can never lead to a morally good sexual act. It is objected that if a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder. This latter example is not an objective disorder, because, if the man or woman learns to control their heterosexual attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing.

The term “objective disorder” may strike some of us with same-sex attractions as being harsh, because we feel that we never asked to have homosexual attractions and we fear that this term is in some way condemnatory or derogatory. It is important to remember that “objective disorder” is a philosophical term which describes a particular inclination - it does not diminish our value and worth in the eyes of God.

It is psychologically understandable that certain people struggle with homosexual attractions. The Church recognizes this and does not condemn people for simply having these attractions; however, the Church also teaches that homosexual acts are always immoral, and therefore, one must also accept that the inclination to engage in such acts is, philosophically speaking, objectively disordered.

Above all, we must keep in mind that homosexual inclinations do not make up our true identity as rational or Christian persons. We are first and foremost men and women created in the image of God - we are exceedingly precious in God’s sight and we have been given the gifts of intelligence and free-will. We can live a life of union with Christ, through prayer, and we can know the peace of interior chastity. This is God’s desire for us, and He continually gives us the grace to live it.

Interview With Father John Harvey of Courage
zenit.org/article-18393?l=english

The fact of the matter is that there is only one orientation, the heterosexual orientation. The homosexual tendency is an objective disorder, and if a person has this objective disorder, it is because other things have happened.

From all the psychological studies of homosexuality, there is no scientific evidence that you are born with the homosexual tendency. There is no evidence. In the future it might be that someone proves scientifically that some people are born as homosexuals, I doubt such would happen, but it might happen.

In the present state of scientific knowledge, however, this is no evidence that homosexuality is a condition, that it is passed down through a particular homosexual gene or is caused by a certain hormone. From what we know today, the main factors leading to a homosexual tendency all have to do with environment: family environment, school environment, adolescent environment.

Q: This document takes pains to note that same-sex attraction does not mean the person is objectively disordered, only that the inclination is disordered. Was there a widespread misconception of the Church’s view on this point?

Father Harvey: In the document itself, they distinguish between the inclination and the person, and confers on the person with the disorder the dignity that God confers on all persons.

Same-sex attraction is not normal. The disorder is a subrational inclination of the person. People with homosexual tendencies suffer with these desires.

I know many people with SSA and most have similar backgrounds that correlate with the information provided in the websites listed above.

I don’t think SSA is genetic and because everyone is heterosexual in nature, there is no basis for same-sex marriage. Men should relate to other men as friends and brothers.

 

[frankieschatz1]

Well, it is natural for a husband to desire his wife and for a wife to desire her husband but I suppose that desire can become excessive. You can become addicted to sex. An addiction to sex would not be natural. Also, a man desiring another man or a woman desiring another woman is not natural either.

You say an addiction to sex is not natural. If the desire for a husband to his wife is based on physical and emotional desires which are very natural, then just going to excess in those desires doesn’t make it unnatural. The desires are still rooted in very natural physical and emotions desires. A sexual addition may make the person’s life extremely difficult, at most, and lead to horrible sins like rape or even incest, or, at least, make life’s focus very limited and sad. It may be nasty, but it is still a natural response to excessive physical and emotional desires…

Compare what you said to other additions. Alcoholism and drug addition are caused by very physical responses to excessive ingestion of alcohol or drugs making it a very natural as opposed to supernatural. Other psychological reasons and responses to excess alcohol and drugs make it more difficult to kick these additions. They even have proof that people who have alcoholic relatives have a higher chance of becoming alcoholic themselves which may be caused by a genetic dispostion in certain such families. This would make alcoholism a very natural response to excesses alcohol consumption.

Hey, and just saying “a man desiring another man or a woman desiring another woman is not natural” doesn’t make it so. What are the facts that prove that such desires are not natural? We need to do more than just state it like the CCC does, because just stating something doesn’t make something any more true or false. Stating the moon is made of cheese doesn’t make it so.

These statements need to be based on truths, facts and proof or they are nothing more than prejudgement statements. Give me some proof that every kind of homosexual sexual activities is unnatural or we will never convince people of the statements in 2257 of the Catholic Catechism.

 

[Dwyer]

Just some thoughts:

Natural human desire means a desire proper to human nature.

Natural angelic desire would mean a desire proper to angelic nature.

“Human nature” means, the state of being that humans are meant to be in. Etc.

So when homosexual desires are said to be unnatural, all it means is that humans because they are humans (possess human nature), are not meant to have them.

No science, no mathematics disproves that. No logic disproves that.

I admire your attempt in its spirited logic, but it falls short.

This is not a true statement at all with regard as to how Catholicism views human nature.

Mankind’s nature is in a Fallen State because of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. It is not a perfect nature. It isn’t a pure nature.

Man has a proclivity towards sin because of his Fallen Nature. Therefore, man’s senses alone are not necessarily cause man to act or behave in ways that are necessarily good just because he acted in such and such a way.

You’re trying to analyze the moral problem from a secular humanist point of view which idolizes the human being and the individual above everything else, including God’s Commandments.

From the standpoint of Catholicism, man’s logic and reason ALONE are not enough to understand the world.

To lead the best life, he needs to look to God’s revealed Truths as given to him by both Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture.

Catholics use both Faith and Reason.

Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology. Theology is the Queen;

Philosophy is the servant.

I think it is pretty clear that God condems homosexuality in the Sodom and Gomorrah passages in Genesis.

I’m sure there are other passages; perhaps someone here can give them to you.

But I think the passage below in Genesis really addresses what you’re asking. God doesn’t give that same commandment to two men in the Bible. (Genesis 1:27-28).

We Catholics believe that the ends must justify the means. We can’t use just any means (in this case wrong analogies, half truths and illogical arguments) to get the end we want no matter how moral that end may be.

I’m not sure what your saying here, but I understand the basic moral argument.

I do not think with the ends / means argument, you need pure human logic unaided by Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture, as you seem to be arguing.

In fact, from the standpoint of Catholicism, one needs God’s Revealed Truths in order to understand any human action better.

One must have both a good end (a purpose), and a good means (good acts) to achieve that purpose. (This is called the Pauline Principle, and I think it is somewhere in Romans).

We can’t use just any means (in this case wrong analogies, half truths and illogical arguments) to get the end we want no matter how moral that end may be.

From the Catholic view, it is not all just a matter of science, it is also a matter of Faith.

It isn’t pure blind faith, as the secular Media likes to portray it; it is a reasoned faith; but it is still faith based on trust in God.

Religion is not entirely based on pure reason alone.

If you had been educated earlier in the Church you would know that natural in this context means other than supernatural, but also refers to cause and effect.

If homosexuality has a physical cause ,we don’t know it. Until 1972, the mental health people treated it as a psychological ailment.

Then in 1972, more for political than scientific reasons, but also because they found their techniques could not “cure” it, they abandoned this stancce and no longer contended that it was a mental illness. Again, that is because they could not decide upon a cause.

Therefore, they went 180 and decided that the proscription of it was entirely a matter of social convention. The gays themselve blame this on Christianity despite the fact that homosexuality is scorned in many, many cultures. Francis Parkman found among the plains indians they were required to associate with squaws. and were treated as such. This is at once evidence that it is a natural conidition and that no one can figure out the underlying cause.

You beg my response. You say it cannot be proved that homosexuals are ‘born’ the way they are. CANNOT? What a closed minded, ungodly and unscientific statement. All things are possible with God. Who are you to say what the future will foretell? It maybe that science will discover the very cause of human sexual orientations.

Look, you’re not taking God’s revealed truths into account. It is really as simple as that.

Using Natural Law reasoning, the purpose of a man’s sperm is to fertilize the egg of a woman. That is the sole purpose of the man’s sperm and why it exists. A man’s reproductive organs and gametes are not to be used in a sexual union between two men.

Genesis 1:27-28.

It will be difficult, I think, for you to understand the Catholic moral teaching if you try and deconstruct everything, don’t use the Bible and Sacred Tradition, and apply modern pop psychology (psychology is a social science and not a true scientific science anyway; your own statement illustrates that) and some sort of Benthamite Utilitarian logic.

We have all these new ways of thinking, but they don’t incorporate either Sacred Tradition or the Bible.

You need to trust God that the Bible is the Word of the Lord.

 

[jfhh]

Dwyer, you didn’t read properly. I was arguing against the person who was using science and math to disprove the wrongness of homosexuality. Note I said “disprove” not “prove.” Science and math does not disprove what natural law says about homosexuality. BTW, according to Catholic doctrine homosexuality is contrary ot natural law, meaning it can be discerned to be immoral by reason alone which includes philosophy.

Since you have trouble reading properly, let me repeat something for you. I believe homosexuality is wrong. I disagree with the OP. I also disagree with you.

 

[TLM08]

You average 40 year old man would find it extremely “natural” to physically desire a beautiful 16 year-old girl, but the norms of society place a stigma on such “encounters” to the point where it is illegal. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it right in the eyes of God… or society.

Our society is losing all sense of sin. More people are willing to try homosexuality because it is not only becoming more acceptable to our society, but it is even being promoted through “same sex” benefits in the workplace and particularly through the entertainment industry. As evil loses it’s stigma, it begins to proliferate.

 

[Vico]

The issue was raised about naturalness as detailed in CCC:

“2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Notice that the rationale for un-naturalness is that homosexual relations “close the sexual act to the gift of life”; there can be other definitions of naturalness that are not referred to here. What is closed to life is contrary to the natural law that continues life through reproduction. The unitive aspect is enjoyable and the procreative (or the openness to life) is functional. Both are required for purity in married sexual activity. Both are required: affective and sexual complementarity.

Does this clarify the issue?

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Vico, for positing 2357.

Anyone who is giving advice face-to-face will give careful considerations to the current circumstances of their friend. People who have come to us asking directions have hopefully received advice appropriate to their needs of the moment. This advice can and does change from person to person according to age, gender, employment, status, etc, etc. I am assuming, likewise, that the God of us is a God of Love with the best interests of His children at heart in the dispensing of directives. What good and loving parent doesn’t consider their children even above thamselves? So, I’m thinking that since God is immutable but that here on Earth we experience time and change, that maybe those injunctions some of our rules are based on may have been tailored for the audience it was given to at the time.

We have to remember that the CCC and other guidlines, even the encyclicals of the Popes, are to a degree and kind circumstantial in that they respond to and address a current need. Therefore it might be wise to be interpreting more ancient documents in the light of Love as it would uplift our current situation. By that I mean that we are dealing here no longer with an insular and parochial agrarian society that depends on children for survival on both economic and military fronts. We are dealing with a kind of reverse situation where few are even aware of the actual logarithmic path that populations, resouces, food, money, everything, is cleary set upon. How are your skills in epistemology, semantics, linguistics, boolean logic, and world views that include concepts and dynamics that we don’t even think exist, and yet bear on our life experience? I know my intelligence, affective or intellectual, only compreneds so little much. Nevertheless, I know that God is Love.

In this light I would consider for myself that the interpretations of ancient texts through the filters of no longer living languages by a group of men who are decidedly patristic in their views, and who are guilty themselves in degrees and kinds of sins we currenttly see in the news, may not be comprehensive of our actual needs and conditions at this time.

Certainly anyone who has a knowledge of simple arithmetic and applies it to our population realizes that we really don’t need to go forth and populate the Earth any more. As for having dominion over the Earth and its creatures we are doing an exceptionally good job of scraping the womb of our Mother Earth and wreaking havoc on her ovaries. And if Jesus walked the Earth today, what would He do in the corporate oiffices of our global financial institutions, which, as Jefferson predicted, have proved more dangerous to us than foreign military. Yet we have even forgiven Copernicus and John Lennon.

I would also submit that given the the scope and range of the nature of affection, it would be unwise to predicate that the particulare range I experience for myself includes all possibilities. In fact, in a Universe as large as the Hubble telescope shows a small part of, and where physicists are using eleven dimensions even to describe the *physical *world, I cannot justifiy for myself an either/or view of something as complex as affection. Indeed, there are very cogent arguments that there are not only hetero/homo sexual orientations, but at least twelve functional gender temperaments not counting those that might be experiencesd by physical hermaphrodites. And that is a group now known to be much larger than thought before. This continuum of affection can be observed in life, literature, and in history.

It ought to be added, I think, that no member of any part of this spectrum would be any more easily converted to another mode than all the “normal” folks would be open to conversion to another modality. Thus ends, I would think, the absurd fear that our children could be “converted” or “seduced” to another orientation. They might be abused into abberant behavior, or into denial, but that is a different consideration than exposure in a school or social setting. I went to a Catholic boys school and managed to survive advances from both faculty and fellows with my gender orientation intact, as did they. It had been tried on me, and I found it easily resitable simply on the grounds of my “nature.” Why would we force our own propensity on someone on another part of the scale for our own debateable moral comfort?

(continued next post)

 

[Detales]

I myself am firmly ensconced in a self assesment of being a reasonably “normal” heterosexual male. I am even uncomfortable with the idea of “SSA” as a mode of experience. But I will be damned if I will put myself in God’s place and prescribe for someone what they in His infinite capacity of creation should or should not feel for someone else in terms of Love. If it is lust, then we have the ordinary dynamic of ethics in play, but not of affective orientation. Someone else’s life in Love is not to be assessed in terms of my comfort. Nor should orientation be assesed or prescribed on grounds of highly debatable textual inferences. Nor should it be treated thus in terms of formal tradition that has likely lost its meaning like a game of telephone over two thousand years or longer.

We live here for a few short years. What arrogance it is to define for someone else their affective life from an unstable stance. If we practice strict Roman Catholicism, (note the pew polls) let it be a belief we consciously choose. But let us know that that is what it is: a faith we choose. The God of Love IS. Catholics and our beliefs at one time weren’t and at one time will not be. To choose a belief is to be on the school yard and decide that I will play dodge ball, not tether ball, or four-square, not basket ball. In any case I am a child of God in the school yard playing according to the rightful rules of my game. “Belief” is a grown up word for “let’s pretend.” It is a “let’s pretend” played with a sense of self investment that carries with it such dangers as sponsoring an Inquisition, a witch hunt, or prosletysing as missionaries of blind dogma rather than Love.

This last is an extreme danger because it is rooted to a very large extent in a sense of self verification. It seems that the human mind at the animal level will do anything to make itself right. Just imagine yourslef as an observer of the argument in Fresno where a barber and a patron shot and killed each other in an argument over which interpretation of a Bible verse was correct. (San Jose News, May 5, 1969) Was either party less sincere, or less willing to die, or kill for his “truth?” What man has done, man can do. It is very incumbant on us, I feel, to be extraordinarily careful to watch for this in ourselves. We must wholeheartedly live our life according to our highest perceived standards. Yet can we say that ours are fitting for someone else in their circumstance? I feel we cannot, other than in levels of public safety. I am competent to make my own choices according to my lights. If there is any preaching or missionarying to be done, let it be in living a live of such perfection ourselves that God shines through us as an attractive force. Then maybe we can say that “they know we are Christians by our Love” and find kindled in themselves a desire to do likewise.

 

[TLM08]

There is NOTHING natural about that evil act that occurs between homosexual men. The parts of the anatomy involved in such a filthy sin are not designed for that.God made himself clear in the Bible how he feels about this. Ignore at your own peril.

 

[frankieschatz1]

There is NOTHING natural about that evil act that occurs between homosexual men. The parts of the anatomy involved in such a filthy sin are not designed for that.God made himself clear in the Bible how he feels about this. Ignore at your own peril.

Judgment is for God. Judge not lest you be judged.
Just because you will never do any homosexual acts (of which there are many not just one) doesn’t give you the right to be nasty. Homosexual tendencies are not natural to you, obviously.

And if you actually read any of the very few passages in the Bible about homosexual activities you will notice that each passage condemns a specific type of homosexual act, such as rape, adultry, pederasty, etc. Nowhere does it condemn a loving, mutual, monogamous affectionate gay relationship. Jesus himself never even said one word for or against it.

 

[TLM08]

Judgment is for God. Judge not lest you be judged.
Just because you will never do any homosexual acts (of which there are many not just one) doesn’t give you the right to be nasty. Homosexual tendencies are not natural to you, obviously.

And if you actually read any of the very few passages in the Bible about homosexual activities you will notice that each passage condemns a specific type of homosexual act, such as rape, adultry, pederasty, etc. Nowhere does it condemn a loving, mutual, monogamous affectionate gay relationship. Jesus himself never even said one word for or against it.

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell us that Jesus thinks that anal intercourse between two men is okay? Based on # 1867 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are certain sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. One of them is the sin of sodomites! At the very least they are guilty of fornication since there is no marriage. Your mind and values have been polluted by the world my friend.

Furthermore, I am not judging any single person. This is judgement of an evil, filthy, unhealthy and mortally sinful act which if unrepented at the time of death will send the soul to burn in Hell forever. This is not my opinion. THIS IS CHURCH TEACHING!

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
Isaiah 5:20

 

[frankieschatz1]

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell us that Jesus thinks that anal intercourse between two men is okay? Based on # 1867 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are certain sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. One of them is the sin of sodomites! At the very least they are guilty of fornication since there is no marriage. Your mind and values have been polluted by the world my friend.

Furthermore, I am not judging any single person. This is judgement of an evil, filthy, unhealthy and mortally sinful act which if unrepented at the time of death will send the soul to burn in Hell forever. This is not my opinion. THIS IS CHURCH TEACHING!

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
Isaiah 5:20

Interesting that you don’t try to use any Bible passages to support your position or the position you are thinking the CCC represents. The sin of Sodom is not homosexual activity as you and many erroneously think. Church theologians know that the great sin of the Sodomites before anything else is to treat the stranger within their midst with extreme inhospitality by not offering food and shelter, but with abuse from their own selfish desires. If they could have forced themselves upon the angelic guests of Lot it would have been rape. And rape is a grave sin that does cry out to God whether it is gay or straight.

In the New Testament the sin of Sodom is always about how one treats the stranger amongst them, not homosexual acts. Even Jesus used the sin of Sodom in this way. So don’t please don’t go using the sin of sodom against homosexuals, it is just showing ignorance. Be a little more creative.

And have you noticed some states do allow gays to marry now…to make loving, faithful, monogamous death-till-you-part relationships? Just because the church doesn’t bless them, why wouldn’t God if they are made with a sincere and life giving love between the couple. Is’t the basis of our morality as christians: Love? I believe many Christians trivialize love, especially love they do not understand, and yet it is Love by which we will be judged (Corinthians 13).

If we base our morality on anything but love we are going against what Jesus himself said. ‘The greatest commandment is tolove the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself.’ All the prophets and the commandments are based upon Love is basic Christianity.

“Woe to false teachers they shall be judged with the harshest condemnations”

 

[TLM08]

Interesting that you don’t try to use any Bible passages to support your position or the position you are thinking the CCC represents. The sin of Sodom is not homosexual activity as you and many erroneously think. Church theologians know that the great sin of the Sodomites before anything else is to treat the stranger within their midst with extreme inhospitality by not offering food and shelter, but with abuse from their own selfish desires. If they could have forced themselves upon the angelic guests of Lot it would have been rape. And rape is a grave sin that does cry out to God whether it is gay or straight.

In the New Testament the sin of Sodom is always about how one treats the stranger amongst them, not homosexual acts. Even Jesus used the sin of Sodom in this way. So don’t please don’t go using the sin of sodom against homosexuals, it is just showing ignorance. Be a little more creative.

And have you noticed some states do allow gays to marry now…to make loving, faithful, monogamous death-till-you-part relationships? Just because the church doesn’t bless them, why wouldn’t God if they are made with a sincere and life giving love between the couple. Is’t the basis of our morality as christians: Love? I believe many Christians trivialize love, especially love they do not understand, and yet it is Love by which we will be judged (Corinthians 13).

If we base our morality on anything but love we are going against what Jesus himself said. ‘The greatest commandment is tolove the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself.’ All the prophets and the commandments are based upon Love is basic Christianity.

“Woe to false teachers they shall be judged with the harshest condemnations”

Are you trying scandalize others? or are you simply trying to justify your own behavior by rejecting Church teaching on homosexuality? The Catholic Church has condemned all homosexual activity.

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

How are you going to explain this when you are standing before the judgement seat of Christ? Are you going to tell Christ that he is wrong too? Do you fear Hell? Do you even believe in Hell?

 

[frankieschatz1]

Are you trying scandalize others? or are you simply trying to justify your own behavior by rejecting Church teaching on homosexuality? The Catholic Church has condemned all homosexual activity.

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

How are you going to explain this when you are standing before the judgement seat of Christ? Are you going to tell Christ that he is wrong too? Do you fear Hell? Do you even believe in Hell?

Dear TLM08,
Scandalize? Far from it. I apologize for playing the devil’s advocate in this so far that you obviously have gotten angry. But I feel your average responses to my inquiry is scandalizing us. You have used CCC quotes inaccurately, use Bible quotes to condemn and justify your prejudgments, and are so closed minded about your preconceived opinions that you haven’t even responded to my original Question about what is ‘natural’ in sexual relations. Your negative, emotional responses to my inquiry is one of the reasons why gay men have told me that they out-right reject our Holy Catholic position on homosexual activity. They hear the hate and then walk away.

What I am looking for is the Catholic definition of ‘natural’ as opposed to or in harmony with the accepted English definition, and the rationale behind CCC 2257. In 2257 CCC it states that the Church doesn’t know the psychological genesis of homosexual desires (and ipso facto heterosexual desires), but yet goes on to call them disordered and unnatural.

It is an obvious leap in logic to any 101 Philosophy student to state we don’t know the causes of something, ie homosexual desires such that we shouldn’t descriminate against homosexuals, and then go on to give it a negative description and also give discriminative prohibitions to ALL homosexual activities.

When I have shared 2257 CCC to defend our Catholic condemnation of all homosexual activity, almost every gay man I have shared it with begins to laugh. They immediately see the major leap in logic of 2257 CCC descriptions and prohibitions.

My original questions asked how I can logically bridge this gap. If we can’t give a progression of logical statements from the premise; 'we don’t know the genesis of homosexuality…to the conclusion; ‘all hoomosexual activities are prohibited’, then we are going against the basic human reasoning that God has gifted us humans with.

My suggestion is that we use new wording to 2257 CCC that gives real logical reasoning from our premise to it conclusion. Either this or I will just continue to have gay men laugh in my face. Are there any reasonable insights you can give me on this dilemma?
Frankie

 

[Ruthie]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, Frankie. Please keep in mind, as I go along, that I love people with SSA, and I want for them what I want for myself - a blessed life here and in eternity.

… if you truly think “Sex was designed by God for one thing: to make babies” then I feel sorry for you. Emotional joy and physical pleasure are also part of God’s design for sex…

Sorry. I should have been more emphatic when I said it is different for humans. Sex, across creation, is God’s design to make babies. For humans it is much more, just as you said, for the reasons you said. I agree completely!

That’s what makes SSA so tragic. All humans desire the emotional joy and physical pleasure that goes with sex. Those with SSA are denied the physical pleasure, and have to find other ways to experience the emotional joy.

If we don’t know what causes homosexual desires … than we can not with integrity declare they are always disordered or unnatural.

We know the biological cause of heterosexual desires in the animal kingdom - the need to pass on our genes. This, of course, is impossible with homosexual sex.

If we find that a recessive gene or excess productions of hormones results in a gay son then being homosexual is natural indeed.

That may be “natural” in how it happens, but that doesn’t mean it is natural according to “the laws of nature.” The laws of nature call for babies.

… it is only a prejudgment to say that hetersexual sex is natural and gay sex is not.

That prejudgment is based on more than just the impossibility of babies. Without going into gory detail, natural sex involves “tab P” going into “slot V,” as a poster (in a different thread) cleverly put it. Homosexual sex involves something different. “Slot R” was not designed to receive a tab, but to dispose of sewage.

…right now when I give the Catholic rational as stated in the CCC, the gay men I have talked to see right through its illogic.

It is very easy for someone with SSA to hear the “you must not” part and not hear the love behind it. Especially since there are some churches, and even people within our Church, that condemn them wholly. That is wrong.

Two things are important here. First is to emphasize that their desires do not condemn them to hell. Second is to tell them that acting on those desires is grave matter, rather than mortal sin. Grave matter doesn’t condemn one to hell. (CCC 1857-1858)

We tend to throw the term “mortal sin” around as if we can make that judgment - but that is exactly the judgment Jesus tells us we can’t make. I would hate to have Jesus tell me, “You judged people to be in mortal sin based on what you could see. Therefore I will judge you the same way.” All we humans can see is whether the matter of sin is grave or venial - and we can even be wrong about that. So rather than telling them that continuing to have homosexual sex will condemn them to hell, say what I believe - that I am afraid it will, because I want to see them in Heaven. Not old biddy, tut-tutting “afraid,” but real fear for them, and real desire to see them in Heaven.-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:“Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:“Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} →

Please help me find some definitive reasons so I don’t look the fool.

Perhaps you could start with what a “disordered appetite” is, and why it does *not *change the human worth and dignity of the person who has one.

Obese people have a disordered appetite for food. Hoarders have a disordered appetite for things. Obsessive-compulsive hand-washers have a disordered appetite for cleanliness. Homosexuals have a disordered appetite for love.

Having an appetite for these things is natural. The person’s response to the appetite is disordered, even though they can’t help that response.

Then go into the love and fear the Church has (and all Christians should have) for our brothers and sisters with SSA.

To God be the glory,

Ruthie

 

[Ruthie]

Church theologians know that the great sin of the Sodomites before anything else is to treat the stranger within their midst with extreme inhospitality by not offering food and shelter, but with abuse from their own selfish desires. If they could have forced themselves upon the angelic guests of Lot it would have been rape. And rape is a grave sin that does cry out to God whether it is gay or straight.

Read the passage again. Yes, inhospitality and rape are part of the sin. But remember that the Sodomites desired specifically to rape the men. Lot offered them his virgin daughters, and they turned them down. (Gen 19:8) That is why “sodomite” passed into the language as meaning someone who, um, puts “tab P” into “slot R.”

But it appears in the New Covenant, too, in 1 Cor 6:9-11. (See also Rom 1:24-32 and 1 Tim 1:8-11.) The word (G733) translated as “sodomites” in some Bibles, and “sexual perverts” in others, is a combination of (G730) “male”, and (G2845) “bed with.” You can’t get much clearer than that. Paul says that men who bed men are unrighteous, and will not go to Heaven.

But the Bible does not contradict itself. It is clear that it is not up to us to decide who makes it into the kingdom of heaven. It is the King who makes that decision. Check the parables of the wheat and the tares (MT 13:24-30), and the net full of fish (Mt 13:47-50).

I believe that CCC 1854-1864 arise from this.

We are to love our neighbors. The highest form of love is to love them into Heaven. This means making tough choices for ourselves, and helping others make those tough choices, too.

To help someone with SSA to replace the hope of “true love” with the hope of Heaven is not easy. But it is what we owe them.

To God be the glory,

Ruthie

P.S. I don’t know how all that formatting text got into my previous post, and now it’s too late to delete it. Sorry about that…