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

[frankieschatz1]

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…

Ruthie,
I appreciate your help in many of the terms in 2357 CCC and they have helped clarify some details. Some examples were very good, but others not. I will only discuss one here for now. The sin of Sodom did give rise to the English word sodomites, meaning men who lie with men. I disagree with your understanding about what the real sin of Sodom is biblically.

Though many have believed the sin of Sodom is homosexual activity, please note that in the whole story there is NO sexual activity at all. There were demands from the men of Sodomy at Lot’s door to have Lot hand over his two guests (angels) to them so they can have relations (sex) with them. If this would have happened it would have been homosexual rape, a very specific sin, but it didn’t happen. Only homosexual desires are voiced here. Are you willing to declare that the sin of Sodom is just homosexual desires?

I hope not, because the Church has stated that homosexual desires are in themselves not sinful just disordered. It is following through on the homosexual desires that the Church says is sinful activity. Therefore the sin of Sodom in Catholic thought is not homosexual activity, but the extreme inhospitality that the men of Sodom had bestowed upon the strangers in their midst.

The culture of Sodom 3000 years ago was very different then our culture today, but not by much. To not offer a guest/stranger safe shelter would have put the guest/stranger outside the city walls or on the streets where thieves and murders resided. Not offering hospitality to a stranger at your gate was not a trivial matter. If someone was left outside the city gate or just out in the streets of Sodom would have meant all his food and means of livelihood would be stolen at least, or he would be murdered at worst. So lets not trivialize the sin of sodom to erroneously mean homosexual desire or activity.

The Catholic theologians I have read interpret all the passages of the New Testament that mention the sin of Sodom, even the passages that Jesus, himself, stated, as the terrible sin of inhospitality. This interpretation of the sin of Sodom is so much more important than the erroneous interpretations that the sin is homosexual desires or activities.

Recognizing the true sin of Sodom as inhospitality makes all of us Christians ask how we have treated strangers/ guests/ homeless among us. We can ask how our actions or inactions have led to the abuse of others - even to their deaths. This is a sobering, valid and better interpretations of this sin, and I am sad how many people have belittled it to mean some sexual sin.

I think belittling it allows people not to think about the real meaning of this great sin. Jesus equates the sin of Sodom to mean extreme inhospitality or rejection of the stranger with the rejection of Gods message which will lead to destruction, so I think we should too.

Luke 10:10 makes it pretty clear. Jesus compares the towns who reject his 72 disciples whom he sent to proclaim ‘peace’ and ‘the Kingdom of God’ to Sodom. It will be more tolerable for Sodom (who only rejected the angelic strangers) on that day than those towns who reject his disciples with Jesus’ message. This is because “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me.” (Luke 10:16) He does not even hint that the sin of Sodom has anything to do with sexual sin. We should not dare to view the sin of Sodom any less that what Jesus did.

If you want to say homosexual activity is sinful by using other scripture passages please do and lets discuss them. These other biblical passages may be what 2357 CCC is talking about.
Frankie
PS. What Bible translations say “Paul says that men who bed men are unrighteous, and will not go to Heaven”? I think that is not a correct translation of the Greek at all.

 

[Antrim]

Why do you think God destroyed Sodom and Gomora? Because of the debauchery that was going on. That is why.

Antrim

 

[Vico]

Detales, thanks for your thoughts. I put some key ones here:

"… maybe those injunctions some of our rules are based on may have been tailored for the audience it was given to at the time.

In this light I would consider for myself that the interpretations of ancient texts … may not be comprehensive of our actual needs and conditions at this time.

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."

If you have studied world religions, like those from India, you may be familar with the terms sruti and smriti, which two terms mean, respectively, revealed knowledge, and the interpretation for the times. The interpretation for the times always refers back to the revealed knowledge for clarification. Now the scriptures tend to be given as the highest authority, however really one has to interpret them with peaceful intuition, i.e., the Holy Spirit. Even though the rules are moderated, such as Moses allowing divorce because men’s hearts were hard, Jesus explained was not the case from the beginning (from Adam and Eve epoch); the truth being eternal.

In the case of sexual morality, the eternal truth seems to be that of preferring God to Satan, Light over Darkness. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his opinion of how reason must defer to God, and that reason must regulate passion. When that “chain of command” fails, as in The Fall of the First Couple, we suffer a loss of our easy perception of God and all the good that contains, and instead suffer. So in presenting the moral rules, it is not to torment people without compassion, but rather to remove their sorrows.

Antrim, yes it seems that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were wicked. Abraham asked God “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” … and God replied “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” (Genesis 18, 22 and 32).

Another quote "20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Which sounds to me like the people were praying to God for relief.

 

[Dwyer]

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.

This is a common misinterpretation of the Scripture passage.

One can judge others actions or acts as being right or wrong, good or evil.

However, one cannot judge another person’s soul as being damned in Hell.

It is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy to Admonish the Sinner.

 

[frankieschatz1]

This is a common misinterpretation of the Scripture passage.

One can judge others actions or acts as being right or wrong, good or evil.
However, one cannot judge another person’s soul as being damned in Hell.
It is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy to Admonish the Sinner.

Dwyer,
The major problem with us humans judging each other is we judge wrongly too often. We can not know all the facts and circumstances surrounding another’s actions with 100% certainty. It is a pre-judgment not a true judgment if we don’t know ALL the facts. So in reality only God can truly judge us correcty. I am suspect when another human claims he can judge another in any way because we are wrong so often.

Now I am not saying we should throw out our judicial system, because we can know enough about the facts to say so-and-so must be incarcerated, and we do need to take certain wrong doers off the streets. Yet look closely at our judicial system that is called to judge another’s actions.

There have been over 150 men taken off death-row in our prison systems since DNA testing in the late 1980s was approved as evidence. DNA evidence/facts can now prove with a million-to-one probability or more that the blood, semen, hair folicles, etc. at a crime scene were not from the convicted one on death-row. This is only one example of humans judging other humans in human history gone wrong. For this main reason Catholics today are cautioned, even have called for a moratorium of the death penalty. “For the sake of the innocent ten I shall spare the many.” (God’s reasoning to Lot to not judge Sodom and Gomorrah)

We are wrong many times in our assessment of guilt. So it should be done only in grave circumstances and with the most thorough investigation of the facts in our justice system, and even in interpersonal relationships. We can be just as wrong in interpersonal judgments as in court.

By doing a Spiritual Work of Mercy as in admonishing the sinner we as Catholics can share what we ‘believe’ is right and wrong. It is counterproductive, I have found out, to then judge said persons of what you think they did or did not do. Because in judging others we unwittingly give off thoughts of guilt and shame which most people pick up on. They, also, can easily throw back in your face the question, ‘Who are you to judge?’ “All have fallen short of the glory of God.”

Frankie

 

[Dwyer]

The major problem with us humans judging each other is we judge wrongly too often. We can not know all the facts and circumstances surrounding another’s actions with 100% certainty. It is a pre-judgment not a true judgment if we don’t know ALL the facts.

I sort of understand the point you are trying to make, but I am not talking about judging others.

I am simply talking about judging if such an **act **or action on the part of a person is bad or a good act.

As I said, you can judge acts as being objectively wrong or right.

However, God has the ultimate judgement regarding the salvation of human creature.

I’ve studied this issue, and that is how the man who is the Director of Catechism in the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois explained this particular passage of Scripture on EWTN.

A well-known Catholic priest and Franciscan Friar, Father Benedict Groeschel also explained this passage of Scripture, and said we can judge person’s acts, but their personal salvation is judged by God.

Those are my Catholic references.

There have been over 150 men taken off death-row in our prison systems since DNA testing in the late 1980s was approved as evidence. DNA evidence/facts can now prove with a million-to-one probability or more that the blood, semen, hair folicles, etc. at a crime scene were not from the convicted one on death-row.

This is all very interesting, but I am not sentencing anyone to Death Row.

I am simply telling another person that some act, whether their act or not, is morally wrong and violates Catholic moral teaching.

We are wrong many times in our assessment of guilt. So it should be done only in grave circumstances and with the most thorough investigation of the facts in our justice system, and even in interpersonal relationships. We can be just as wrong in interpersonal judgments as in court.

You must admonish the sinner with gentleness and charity.

I’m not sure where you are getting your ideas from.

I will tell you, the secular media often misrepresents Catholic moral teaching and Christianity in general.

This is one of the secular Media’s favorite passages of Scripture.

But the way that they interpret the Scripture passage, which is very similar to the way you are interpreting it, is not the way that Catholic Scripture scholars interpret the passage.

As I said, this is one of the most misinterpreted passages of the New Testament.

You ought to see some of the things the secular media says about Catholicism. Examples: John Paul II’s entombed body will be worshipped by Catholics in the Vatican Crypt (CNN during the coverage of the funeral of John Paul II); Catholics worship the Virgin Mary (PBS: Globetrekker Travel Show: Argentina; also PBS: Secrets of the Dead).

By doing a Spiritual Work of Mercy as in admonishing the sinner we as Catholics can share what we ‘believe’ is right and wrong.

Again, I’m not sure where you are coming up with this stuff.

No, you can actually tell people, doing so with Prudence and charity, that the acts they do are either good or bad acts.

It is counterproductive, I have found out, to then judge said persons of what you think they did or did not do. Because in judging others we unwittingly give off thoughts of guilt and shame which most people pick up on. They, also, can easily throw back in your face the question, ‘Who are you to judge?’

You are noting judging their salvation, you are judging their actions.

Look, I don’t need to know with 100% spot on certitude that they personally committed the bad act or not.

You can simply say the proverbial, “Well, you know if I knew someone who was in a homosexual relationship (or getting drunk, or whatever), I would tell that person they are if they engage in that type of behavior, it is morally wrong and they are in a state of mortal sin, etc,”.

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Vico.

Yes, there is a distinction between revelation and rules. These both have their degrees and kinds. That is why I often refer to the stories such as the one about the people who cut off the ends of the ham, and about the game of telephone, & why I hasten to caution against anything so practically vague as “peaceful intuition” or even “the Holy Spirit.” Judging from historic interpretations of the intent of God in of any of His “Persons,” ranging from the remarkable individual revelations some have experienced, to wholesale slaughters based on such, I tend to be very careful in accepting someone’s considerations as other than only their personal considerations.

If we look at the membership of the Church and listen to things that have been considerd as revelations of intuition or of the Holy Spirit, we have the same form as we have outside the Church in spiritualism and the like. Only the content is different in that it is faith specific. If indeed the general population of the Faith were suceptible to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, would not science be in a different state? Or Columbus might have left the hands on the the poor Amerinds he de-manuated. Or some million women might have survied because there would not have been witch hunts, or an Inquisition. Etc., etc., etc.

I maintain that goodness exists on a different axis than religious affiliation, the Church notwithstanding. In this regard it might be useful to investigate the shenanigans surrounding the transmogrification of the Church around the third century, including forgeries, character assasinations, and even murders. In The City of God, St. Augustin said that “There are many thing that are true which it is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know, and certain things which although are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise.”

So it is up to us to decide if we are vulgar and ought to believe convenient falsehoods, or do we want to sincerely seek the truth? If you have done your homework on world religions, Vico, perhaps you would not even be in this forum. There is indeed one Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church, but it may not be exactly what it is piously believed to be by many.

And yes, reason must defere to God in the sense that we cannot stubbornly stick to our dogmatic assumptions in the face of contrary evidence. That at least must be examined on its terms. God, your Soul, and your individuality are not currupted by the act of forensic evaluation of a thought sequence and its roots.

Unfortunately, the premises and assumptions used by most folks in such queries are sadly lacking in scope. As Heinlein said, “Most people think well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg.” It is why I always recommend Gina Cerminara’s handbook on religious sanity. Whatever she might personally believe in, her stated methodology is remarkably relevant. This stands even in the face of someone who reviled her on the basis of beliving in something that was pretty standard in the early Church and was only later discounted under questionable circumstances. In fact there is a plethora of scholarly work regarding the roots of the Church that would send many running from the pews. Again, goodness, which is the evidence of God’s Love, is distinctly not on the same axis of experience as religous faith, though it is convenient to make such a lazy attribution. We must look more deeply and revitalize the faith on a more original foundation.

Similarly, the five cities incidents would far more easily indicate a retribution or cleansing due to a high degree of *every *kind of sin done in arrogance. The incident at Lot’s door was an attempted gang rape, by the way, not any sort of expression of filos or love simple, and would be reprehensible on any count regardless of gender orientation. At least the Muslim rendition of Lot offering his daughters (is that any better???) to the crowd is on a more moral footing. It is also only one incident in the seemingly vast array of ongoing transgressions perpetrated on not only strangers to those cities, but on any who were kind, eg Lot’s daughter (burned) and her relative (hung out to be eaten by bees,) their “sin” being giving bread to hungry strangers. Sounds like the fire and brimstone was a general pre-emptive strike to me, if indeed it was historical, as there seems to be some doubt about that despite meager evidence to the contrary. But we weren’t there, and in any case, true or not, it can be a valuable teaching tale.

And yes, Truth is eternal and unchanging. But it is neither in sruti nor smriti. These are guides, or a pointing, to a kind of knowledge that is above the law or written revelation. It is called, in the system you refere to, “Advaita.” Outside of that, our debates here are quite speculatory, enjoyable as they are. I’m quite convinced that if we all were One with God this discussion would not be happening.

As for removing sorrows, as in any other form of behavioral consideration, moralizing, especially the degree and kind that has someone hiding in fear from his or her brothers and sisters in Christ, can only cause psychic distortions that interfere with clarity. Homosexuality exists. It exist “naturally” everywhere in the kingdoms. ( see nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html ) No amount of calling it an aberration or disease will change that, nor will it help anyone in any part of the spectrum of gender oriantations, of which, as I said, there are easily twelve, not counting the cases of physical hermaphrodites of different kinds and degrees.

I simply maintain that the Love of God knows no bounds in degree or form, and that fearful, small minded people who have used God as a justification for every kind of perversion and emnity, need not be taken as gospel in our understanding of a Creation FAR greater and more loving than our wildest imaginations can conceive.

 

[frankieschatz1]

Thanks, Vico.

Yes, there is a distinction between revelation and rules. These both have their degrees and kinds.

I simply maintain that the Love of God knows no bounds in degree or form, and that fearful, small minded people who have used God as a justification for every kind of perversion and emnity, need not be taken as gospel in our understanding of a Creation FAR greater and more loving than our wildest imaginations can conceive.

Detales,
Thanks for your words, especially your last paragraph. I would have only used the word Creator rather than Creation. In my understanding of the Creator God of my own dearest Father and the God of my heart, Gods intensity, ability and desire to love is far greater than the need to judge our sinfulness.

I truly love the story of Sodom; the full story. So many concentrate on the sin in the story of Sodom instead of God’s part in that story. God’s part is much more interesting and important.

God is willing in the full story, because of his great love, to spare the thousands of guilty ones for the sake of only the ten innocent ones. I have always wondered if Abraham would have dealt with God further would God have saved all of Sodom and Gomorrah if Abraham would have asked him to save them for the sake of only one innocent one?

My Christian understanding of God in Jesus Christ leads me to believe he would have spared Sodom for the sake of even one.
God loves us so intensely that He would die in their place for each and every person just as Jesus did on the cross. God’s desire to love, forgive, and save far out weighs God’s ability to judge and condemn the sinner by such a great extent that we humans cannot comprehend such a weight.

Concentrating on the God’s true propensity for infinite power and infinite knowledge should be tempered by our dwelling upon his infinite love. Sadly, too many dwell on the small amount of knowledge they know of right and wrong and prejudge accordingly rather than dwell upon the small amount they know of God’s forgiveness and love.

This is why I am still a Christian even after learning all about the atrocities Jesus’ so called followers have committed in his name in history. I have sensed the presence of the Holy Spirit of the loving God in Jesus Christ so deeply in my heart and soul that is is easier to distinguish some of the things people have done in the past in his name as being from him or not. Though it may be still difficult to distinguish such while they are happening today.

One person a few years back tried to ‘admonish me the sinner’ of something he thought I was doing wrong. He was right, actually, so I asked him why he was so concerned about - me? I asked him if his reason was that he loved me so much. He sputtered, gawked, and then simply walked away.

This is only one personal example that brought home to me the Scripture passage from 1 Corinthians 13. “If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal…if I have all faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” “… but the greatest of these is love.”
Frankie

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Frankie,

Actually I agree with you about “Creator” as distinct from “Creation.” I’m somewhat forensic in my considerations and tend to go on evidence as a pointer, remebering not to take working hypotheses as final conclusions.

I also appreciate the quote at the end of your post about Love. ( I capitalize certain words or put them in quotes in some contexts to distinguish a higher or more fundamental meaning in my understanding.) I agree also with the Rabbi who said “God is Love; the rest is commentary.”

For me it is no conundrum that atrocities have been commited in the name of God. As I have said before, I agree with Samuel Clemens on these two counts: “Man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal.” and “God created Man in His own Image and Likeness, and man returned the favor.” (all three caps mine, not second “man” is not capitalized.)

Anyone who has atteneded school or compared witnesses to an event knows clearly that there are not only different perspectives, but also different levels of understanding. We even know that there is such a thing as purgery. In our natural but most often uneducated and undisciplined sense of sense of self worth, it is easy to misattribute and misconstrue data, especially something as subtle and profound as the Word. Again, I refer to Cerminara’s treatment of how we aquire and use religious thought. I also see that humans populate a scale of understanding ranging from feral children, monsters physical and psychic, through a remarkably wide, underexamined, and underappreciated range of “normalcy,” to those who can be esteemed as Saints and Sages. It is across this last that despite ages, cultures, regions, and even affiliations. there tends ot be the most agreement. That speaks to me of a basic underlying Unity.

That, for may part, is the Love of the Christ, and is paramount in any profound feeling, understanding, or living of Truth. That is all I will say here for concerns of both revilement and scandal. I don’t think I am your average Catholic in some senses of the word.

Whatever that might mean, I do appreciate your words, your clarity, and your tenacity in seeking answers. It is also said, (Matt. 7:7) “Seek, and ye shall find; ask and it shall be answered; knock, and it shall be opened to you.”

( A really neat tool that you may already know about is biblos.com . Interestingly enough, the Lamsa translation, which is based on Aramaic, is missing from the options there. Neither are there critical source evaluations present, though I am new to that site and may not have yet found them.)

A

 

[frankieschatz1]

I sort of understand the point you are trying to make, but I am not talking about judging others.

I am simply talking about judging if such an **act **or action on the part of a person is bad or a good act.

As I said, you can judge acts as being objectively wrong or right.

However, God has the ultimate judgement regarding the salvation of human creature.

Dwyer,
Thanks for your thoughts. Its seems we are say the same thing and find different results. You have stated:
“I am not talking about judging others.”

But actions are not done in a vacuum. They are done by people. If you judge an action you are judging that person who has done the action. Therefore, you ARE talking about judging others. There is no way around this in judging others.

You can hypothetically say certain actions are wrong or right, but we don’t live in hypothetical land. We can say stealing is wrong, hypothetically, but in real circumstances it may not be so bad. What if you are starving and no one will give you bread, and you take it? Who is the greater sinner here: the man who stole the bread or the ones who wouldn’t share their bread, thus forcing him to steal in order to stay alive.

And I am getting my ideas from Scripture. I remember Fr. Laliberti’s class back in college pretty well. We examined what it meant biblically to ‘judge.’ To judge, especially in the Old Testament, means to judge in the negative or to condemn; ie, condemn to hell.

In the New Testament It states two times in two different Gospels (Mat 7:1, Luke 6:37) that Jesus implores us not to judge lest we be judged. In other words stop condemning others or you might be condemned. But forgive and you shall be forgiven.

I think it is a fine line we are to tread as Catholics to admonish the sinner and yet not judge him lest we also be condemned.
So therefore, I take your suggestions as admonishing others with prudence and charity. Yet I would add we should admonish with deep Love and concern, like a loving parent would his child. Any other lesser motive to admonish another is not Christ-like, and fewer people listen to you.

But Dwyer, do you really think that saying this to someone:

“Well, you know if I knew someone who was in a homosexual relationship (or getting drunk, or whatever), I would tell that person they are if they engage in that type of behavior, it is morally wrong and they are in a state of mortal sin, etc,”.

is not judging someone salvation just their actions? No matter how you say such a statement it will be taken as judging their actions and their salvation.

Think again. This is a perfect example of judging someone’s salvation. You have said they are in mortal sin and to a Catholic this means you just said they are going to hell. Think of another example please.

I’m sorry, but your admonishment is said without prudence or charity, and certainly not with love. Your desire to admonish the sinner has tread over your own fine line.

There has to be another way to help someone come to their own conclusion that their actions are harmful to themselves or others in the most loving way that they will actually listen. Giving me an example of that would please me greatly.
Frankie

 

[That_one_guy]

Wow!I didn’t realize it was that complicated! I would’ve just figured it had to do with ‘nature’…or things pertaining to earthly passions or inclinations.
This is a fairly informative thread,actually.

 

[frankieschatz1]

Wow!I didn’t realize it was that complicated! I would’ve just figured it had to do with ‘nature’…or things pertaining to earthly passions or inclinations.
This is a fairly informative thread,actually.

Actually, I think you are more right on the money than most. Nature as defined by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 10 (I think) meant physical, for he described Jesus as a physical man as different from his Spirit which is Divine. This is why we Catholics believe Jesus was both Human and Divine, ie. God made flesh.

If all sexual desires have a natural cause, not spiritual or psychological, then they are NATURAL not unnatural. No sexual desire then would go against nature. And it can be reasoned that it may not be disordered in any way too especially if it harms no one.

This is a very scary concept for many religious people who want to say homosexuals are unnatural, disordered, sick, unhealthy, and going to hell. So if scientific studies determine that the homosexual desires are truly natural, genetic or hormonal, etc. religious people will have to find another rational to condemn them.

Of course, the Catholic Church unlike some Christian denominations, does not say being a homosexual and having homosexual desires is sinful, just any and all homosexual activity is. They make no concessions for gay relationships that are loving, mutual, monogamous just like Married heterosexual couples. Even a gay relationship based on love is sinful in the Churches eyes. Yet if we find that being gay is just as natural as being straight, and that it is far from disordered, how can we keep such an all encompassing stance?

This thread has certainly brought a lot of thoughts to my mind.
Frankie

 

[fix]

If all sexual desires have a natural cause, not spiritual or psychological, then they are NATURAL not unnatural. No sexual desire then would go against nature. And it can be reasoned that it may not be disordered in any way too especially if it harms no one.

This is a very scary concept for many religious people who want to say homosexuals are unnatural, disordered, sick, unhealthy, and going to hell. So if scientific studies determine that the homosexual desires are truly natural, genetic or hormonal, etc. religious people will have to find another rational to condemn them.

That something occurs in nature does not axiomatically make it “natural” in the sense it was ordained that way by the creator. We live in a fallen world. Science can never determine or invent morality.

 

[That_one_guy]

This is a very scary concept for many religious people who want to say homosexuals are unnatural, disordered, sick, unhealthy, and going to hell. So if scientific studies determine that the homosexual desires are truly natural, genetic or hormonal, etc. religious people will have to find another rational to condemn them.

Of course, the Catholic Church unlike some Christian denominations, does not say being a homosexual and having homosexual desires is sinful, just any and all homosexual activity is. They make no concessions for gay relationships that are loving, mutual, monogamous just like Married heterosexual couples. Even a gay relationship based on love is sinful in the Churches eyes. Yet if we find that being gay is just as natural as being straight, and that it is far from disordered, how can we keep such an all encompassing stance?

This thread has certainly brought a lot of thoughts to my mind.
Frankie

I don’t think we will find being gay as a “natural”.In nature it has been discovered that in an overpopulation of certain rodents that they will revert to a form of homosexuality instinctively as there are not enough females to copulate with.Then, when the population returns to a sustainable level they return to their normal state.But, we are not rodents.
I also think that the subject of homosexuality would belong in a different thread.Especially,(and I do not mean to incite controversy)since it appears as if you are posting an excuse for accepting it as ‘natural’.(This is how it appears; FTR,I have gay friends and they know my stance on it and we get along just fine.)

 

[Detales]

Hi “Fix,”

Welcome to the thread.

Wow. Big responsibility, defining “fallen.” I, myself, don’t have the juevos to declare such a definite understanding of the word. Since, as I have indicated to Frankie, I’m somewhat forensic in my approach to matters of faith, my perspective on the nature (there’s that word) of the Fall is modified a bit by some other factors. One of those I will only mention because, since you are on here, I must assume that you, like many here, are interested in clarifying your understanding by dint of other perspectives, and are not just bent on touting your particular take on the teaching of the Church. I will also assume that none of us were eyewitnesses to either account of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis,* or the said Fall.

We do know that it has historically been the way of teachers and Teachers to use allegory and parables to impart knowledge. This is particularly true of any aspect of self-knowledge. Surely we can admit that the matter of salvation is in the quale of self-knowldege. And we know from the Gospels that Jesus ( Iesus, Ieshua,-- or even Iusu, perhaps, if you go back that far–“j” is a reletavely recent invention. ) taught in parables. In his wonderful book, The New Man, Maurice Nicol explicates beautifully the levels of meaning inherent in the parables, and indeed of many of the teaching traditions of that time and that area. That was the accepted and safe way to transmit knowledge potentially harmful to the unprepared. But we in this day and age, being faced with false piety, intellectualism, and other such, tend not to be so light handed. This may be particulary true of such a thread as this where we may not know and have to guess at the emotional or intellectual maturity of our fellow correspondees.

What I’m trying to get at is that whatever actually constitues the Fall of Man may not, and in my opinion, certainly did not, involve the ways and means of the Nature world. In my understanding at least, the consequences of the expulsion, whatever that constituted, were directed at A & E and their descendants, not the rest of the creation on Earth. ( Looking at some of the deep field photos from Hubble and considering the vastness of the implications thereof, I’m not clear what happened “out there,” where some popularly claim the truth is, regarding these consequences, lol! )

Anyway, maybe you can go to nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html and brows around there. You can use what you find either to change or to bolster your stance in this matter. That is, after all, our great tendency: to take parochial information and generalize from that into universals. A personally and socially dangerous game at best, I would think.

In this regard, if we take “science” to mean organized, rational thought, certainly there have been some very good moral perspectives outside of the realm of those that are faith based, to be sure, whether we accept them as fundamentally comprehensive systems notwithstanding.

A

In the first chapter of Genesis, A & E are created, it would seem, simultaneously by a plural*, Feminine God (Elohim). In the second chapter they are created by Jehovah God sequentially, and she from his “rib,” now more correctly understood to be “side,” as what I hear some scholars regard its meaning.

**This is sometimes taken to be plural excellentiae, magnitudinis, or maiestaticus, you know, like the royal “We,” but such uses are relatively new historically originating in CE times compared to the time of the original writing.

 

[fix]

Hi “Fix,”

Welcome to the thread.

Wow. Big responsibility, defining “fallen.” I, myself, don’t have the juevos to declare such a definite understanding of the word. Since, as I have indicated to Frankie, I’m somewhat forensic in my approach to matters of faith, my perspective on the nature (there’s that word) of the Fall is modified a bit by some other factors. One of those I will only mention because, since you are on here, I must assume that you, like many here, are interested in clarifying your understanding by dint of other perspectives, and are not just bent on touting your particular take on the teaching of the Church. I will also assume that none of us were eyewitnesses to either account of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis,* or the said Fall.

We do know that it has historically been the way of teachers and Teachers to use allegory and parables to impart knowledge. This is particularly true of any aspect of self-knowledge. Surely we can admit that the matter of salvation is in the quale of self-knowldege. And we know from the Gospels that Jesus ( Iesus, Ieshua,-- or even Iusu, perhaps, if you go back that far–“j” is a reletavely recent invention. ) taught in parables. In his wonderful book, The New Man, Maurice Nicol explicates beautifully the levels of meaning inherent in the parables, and indeed of many of the teaching traditions of that time and that area. That was the accepted and safe way to transmit knowledge potentially harmful to the unprepared. But we in this day and age, being faced with false piety, intellectualism, and other such, tend not to be so light handed. This may be particulary true of such a thread as this where we may not know and have to guess at the emotional or intellectual maturity of our fellow correspondees.

What I’m trying to get at is that whatever actually constitues the Fall of Man may not, and in my opinion, certainly did not, involve the ways and means of the Nature world. In my understanding at least, the consequences of the expulsion, whatever that constituted, were directed at A & E and their descendants, not the rest of the creation on Earth. ( Looking at some of the deep field photos from Hubble and considering the vastness of the implications thereof, I’m not clear what happened “out there,” where some popularly claim the truth is, regarding these consequences, lol! )

Anyway, maybe you can go to nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html and brows around there. You can use what you find either to change or to bolster your stance in this matter. That is, after all, our great tendency: to take parochial information and generalize from that into universals. A personally and socially dangerous game at best, I would think.

In this regard, if we take “science” to mean organized, rational thought, certainly there have been some very good moral perspectives outside of the realm of those that are faith based, to be sure, whether we accept them as fundamentally comprehensive systems notwithstanding.

A

In the first chapter of Genesis, A & E are created, it would seem, simultaneously by a plural*, Feminine God (Elohim). In the second chapter they are created by Jehovah God sequentially, and she from his “rib,” now more correctly understood to be “side,” as what I hear some scholars regard its meaning.

**This is sometimes taken to be plural excellentiae, magnitudinis, or maiestaticus, you know, like the royal “We,” but such uses are relatively new historically originating in CE times compared to the time of the original writing.

Are you a skeptic? A materialist? A rationalist? Do you embrace some eclecticism?

I ask because I cannot figure out your point?

My point is that just because something occurs in nature does not make such a thing natural as in intended that way from the start.

I mean how is health defined? If there is a type of blindness that has a genetic component do you say blindness is “natural”?

If you are unsure about the nature of our fallen world is that proof it is not fallen or is it that you refuse to accept what is true?

 

[That_one_guy]

 

[MarkInOregon]

If a homosexual human is formed by nature which he so obviously is then his sexual desires are just as natural to himself as a heterosexuals sexual desires is natural to himself. To say otherwise to ignore personal experiences and much of the scientific studies of late of what is natural to a homosexual person.
Frankie

By this logic:
the person born blind should not try to regain his sight,
the deaf person should not try to hear,
the person without a limb should not try to replace that limb
the pedophile should be free to act on their desires
those engaged in beastiality should be free to act on their desires
because these humans were formed by nature–which they so obviously are? Is that what you are saying?

I am thinking you misunderstand Natural Law.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

This doesnt seem correct. Homosexual behavior would not lead to the gene (assuming for the sake of argument that it is 100% genetic) being passed on and as such homosexuality would cease eventually cease to exist (except as the rare mutation) as do other harmful genetic mutations (meaning it hinders the species ability to reproduce itself). Just because something occurs in nature–does not make it natural. It is not natural for people to have no arms–to be born that way does not make it natural(or perhaps normal is a better word)–it simply means something went wrong in the genetic process. Sometimes these mistakes are beneficial but much more often they are detrimental.
The problem with what your are saying is that – you are essentially saying pedophilia, beastiality etc are perfectly natural–and…You are saying that anything that occurs in nature is natural and by extension–should be accepted and embraced–

 

[Detales]

Hi That one guy,

Love the popcorn eating emoticon. Excellent finesse. Kudos.

A