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

[Detales]

Hi “Fix,”

I thoroughly enjoyed *Fides et Ratio *as far as I got. (Not very, but I will certainly return to it.) I’ve not yet come across the reference to eclecticism, so perhaps you would help me out here by being specific about where it is in that document, though eventually I will get to it. In that regard, as for asking what I am, or what I embrace (there’s an opening, lol!) I have been quite clear about that. I said in the body of the post you are commenting on that “I’m somewhat forensic in my approach to matters of faith.” So there is your answer, as "-ic"y as it may seem.

My point, since we are in this thread talking about “NATURAL,” is also in the body of the text of that post, as follows: “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.”

That and the text surrounding it mean, relative to your statement about living in a “fallen world,” that I believe *Man *fell, not the blameless Creation he inhabits.

Continuing on that, respective to “natural,” that is a word that came into our language c.1300, as “naturel, – of one’s inborn character, of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man),” I might have said “as distinct from man,” but since we have proved as a race to be at war with our environment in a suicidal way, perhaps that wording is correct. But in terms of usage, not in one of the over 50 definitons of that word in its many uses did I find any meaning that included adherence of any sort to an ideal, Divine or otherwise. I wonder then if it might not be more appropriate to use the word “normal,” “average,” “ideal,” or some other word rather than “natural” when refering to what happens in–or is the condition of–the world of objects.

The ideas of God as models for a manifestation are certainly perfect, but individual forms in matter are subject to conditons that render them at some variance from that perfect idea. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, took the stance of holding absolutely to this perfection of Divine Idea to bring about the legion of healings documented to her. That is to say that form is subject to error or distortion (and miracles!) whereas Divine idea is not.

In this thread, then, it might be useful to distinguish the process of happenings in nature from Divine Idea. If there is a wound, it is natural for it to bleed. If it is miraculously healed, that event is regarded as a “supernatural,” something above nature, or “above” the normal cause and effect scheme of realtivity we mostly interpret our world through. So yes, if there is a blindness due to genetics, or ignorance, that blindness is a “natural” consequence of the conditions that precipitated it. In either case it may be curable, which happy condition might be termed a “natural” consequence of of the remedy, whatever that may be.

It is the latter form of blindness that I seek to alleviate by my forensic approach. And like C.S. Lewis’ atitude toward prayer, I do not do it to change God, but to change myself. I am not doing it to change you, either. This is a forum for putting perceptions on the table for consideration. The world, whether fallen or not, appears to us as full of imperfections. In the spirit of Fides et Ratio, it seems incumbent on us, as far as I can tell, not to rely blindly on faith, but to use the wings mentioned at the start of that document to increase our understanding through inquiry. The only final Truth is God, and anything short of Diety is lacking. I therefore attribute to my own understanding the great shortcoming of its being human.

But I will not cease to probe around with the tools availabe to me as God given abilities to gain some perspective, and will not limit that activity by subscribing to blind faith, which may by some be termed “truth.” It may be, but for my part I want to know how and why. God’s Perfection is not effected by my entertaining possibilities, and if I am to be judged, let it be for using my gifts to their best, and in such sincerity as is possible to me.

 

[Detales]

Hi “MarkInOregon,”

I don’t believe that Frankie, from my reading of the post you commented on, means any logical follow through in terms of any evaluation of behavior. Frankie is, I think, just saying that there is such an occurence in Nature as homosexuality, and is not commenting in that sentence you quoted as to any evaluation or consequence.

In a similar way, it is “natural” for every sort of thought to present itself to our awareness. Depending on where we are develop-mentally in the continuum and its variances from feral child to Saint, we may deal with these presentations according to our lights. I don’t see how the conclusions you propose derive in any logical way from what Frankie said. I.e., what occurs naturally is one thing, what a thinking, feeling person does with it is something quite different, and naturally depends on what they steer by. So I don’t believe that what you imply is being said is necessarily there at all.

As for what you said to “Blade and Blood,” your suggestion of the word “normal” is well taken, I think, but on the same token, I don’t see that your “by extension” is accurate as it is not necessitated by the statement, only a possibility on another axis of consideration, as far as I can see.

 

[frankieschatz1]

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–

Mark,
It is very obvious your knowledge, specifically in genetics, is very, very limited. Maybe an example would help. We get our genetic make up from our parents, half in our mother’s ova and the other half from our father sperm cell.

Eye color is genetically based. A brown eyed gene is a dominant gene. A blue eyed gene is a recessive gene. If you get a brown eyed gene from one parent and a blue eyed gene from the other your eyes will be brown since it is dominant.
That is why most people in the world have brown eyes. The only way for someone to have blue eyes is for both parents to give you the recessive blue eyed gene.

It may be found in the future that our sexual orientation is like this. The ‘homosexual gene’ may be the recessive gene. And the ‘heterosexual gene’ could be the dominant gene which would explain why most people have a heterosexual orientation (thus keeping the human population going). The recessive ‘homosexual gene’ can still be there, however, in a heterosexual person who got one ‘heterosexual gene’ and from one parent and one ‘homosexual gene’ from the other. It could then be passed on to the grand children.

This is, of course, conjecture, since genetic scientists have not found this homosexual gene, but they have done many sexuality studies in the past 20 years. Many of these studies have suggested that our sex and sexuality is very genetically based which would make it very natural indeed.
Human, sexuality, sexual orientations, affectations, etc. are much more complimented than we ever thought.

For your second point, pedophilia and beastiality are sexual actions not naturally occuring sexual orientations or affectations. So to be clear most pedophiles are heterosexual men. So just because someone may be heterosexual by nature doesn’t mean that every sexual action he commits is a good one. Same thing goes for homosexual men.

What I am saying is that, IF something occurs in nature it IS physical, natural thing by it very definition. To use natural in another way than the physical, biological, chemical part is to change it definition.

St. Paul’s, himself, defines the nature part of Jesus, as having a physical human part, and the spiritual part such that Jesus was also Divine. (1 Cor. 10). This definition should be our stating point when we use the word nature or natural.

If a child is born without arms it may have a genetic reason, or it may be caused by some complex process while the child was in the womb when the mother consumed a toxic chemical. It isn’t a normal or average thing for a human child to be born without arms, but it is a physical thing of nature just the same, therefore, it is the natural product of the genetic makeup or the toxic chemical reactions. And this CHILD born without arms should be accepted and embraced with just as much love as a child who was born with arms.

Don’t confuse natural or nature with normal or average. They are very different concepts. So yes, if something does occur physically in nature is it by definition natural. Sometimes it may not be normal or average, helpful or a hindrance but if it is a physical characteristic is definitely a thing of nature.

Scripture makes a distinction of what is natural and unnatural such as the case in sexual actions too. If a man is a married, (100% heterosexual male), and he goes outside his married relationship and has sex with a another man, the scripture writers described this kind of action as unnatural. The man did something outside his natural sexual orientation, and his sin would be the sin of adultry first and foremost.

A 100% homosexual male who got married to a woman would also be doing something unnatural since his natural sexual orientation would not be towards a female, but towards a male. This is why the Church can and does give annulments to such marriages. There is so much I have learned from this thread, but mostly I have learned that there is so much more to learn about being a human child of God.
Frankie

 

[Jennifer_J]

Most of these arguements point out the fact that you don’t know what the word “natural” means in the case of Church teaching. Many things have a “natural” order. The PRIMARY end of sexual relations is PROCREATION. Secondarily, is unity/pleasure. When you try to seperate the natural order–pleasure only (sex addict) or procreation only (continuing to have children, even if the mother is in danger)–you now have an disordered act and the act is broken in meaning. To take a non Church example: the natural order of eating is to digest your food and not to throw it up. When vomiting happens, the natural order is disturbed (and you’re usually pretty sick or have an eating disorder). This “natural” order has nothing to do with feelings, wants, desires, etc. “Natural” means how something is ordered–and is objectivly measured. Keep the subjective out of it.

As Catholics we are called to certianly love and accept those with SSA. We are also to teach the truth with love. Acting on those feelings that come with SSA is the sin–NOT having the feelings. I have lots of feelings that if I acted on them, I would be sinning. We all should learn to control those feelings. After all, we are not animals, we CAN control ourselves and make moral choices.

 

[fix]

I’ve not yet come across the reference to eclecticism, so perhaps you would help me out here by being specific about where it is in that document, though eventually I will get to it.

The first goes by the name of eclecticism, by which is meant the approach of those who, in research, teaching and argumentation, even in theology, tend to use individual ideas drawn from different philosophies, without concern for their internal coherence, their place within a system or their historical context. They therefore run the risk of being unable to distinguish the part of truth of a given doctrine from elements of it which may be erroneous or ill-suited to the task at hand…

… Eclecticism is an error of method, but lying hidden within it can also be the claims of historicism. To understand a doctrine from the past correctly, it is necessary to set it within its proper historical and cultural context…

That and the text surrounding it mean, relative to your statement about living in a “fallen world,” that I believe *Man *fell, not the blameless Creation he inhabits.

Which physical evils were present before the fall?

But in terms of usage, not in one of the over 50 definitons of that word in its many uses did I find any meaning that included adherence of any sort to an ideal, Divine or otherwise. I wonder then if it might not be more appropriate to use the word “normal,” “average,” “ideal,” or some other word rather than “natural” when refering to what happens in–or is the condition of–the world of objects.

I guess you need to look to the proper authority in these matters. The true authority is Jesus. He speaks through His Church on such matters.

If there is a wound, it is natural for it to bleed. If it is miraculously healed, that event is regarded as a “supernatural,” something above nature, or “above” the normal cause and effect scheme of realtivity we mostly interpret our world through. So yes, if there is a blindness due to genetics, or ignorance, that blindness is a “natural” consequence of the conditions that precipitated it. In either case it may be curable, which happy condition might be termed a “natural” consequence of of the remedy, whatever that may be.

Again, that things occur in nature does not mean that was intended so from the start. In the fallen world we have health and we have disease. We, rightly, distinguish between them.

it seems incumbent on us, as far as I can tell, not to rely blindly on faith, but to use the wings mentioned at the start of that document to increase our understanding through inquiry. The only final Truth is God, and anything short of Diety is lacking. I therefore attribute to my own understanding the great shortcoming of its being human.

The phrase blind faith is misued often. If you read the document you will see that faith perfects reason. As is said faith is to reason as a telescope is to the eye.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

what’s a bigger sin: homosexuality among men or women? obviously they are both gravely immoral, but is one more disordered? we know that not all mortal sins are equal.

it seems the bible is explicitly opposed to homosexuality among men but there doesn’t seem to be any direct reference of it among women.

also on the surface, homosexuality between men is more disgusting then between women. i think this is because women can’t penetrate each other. women are by nature more nurturing.

 

[fix]

Eye color is genetically based. A brown eyed gene is a dominant gene. A blue eyed gene is a recessive gene. If you get a brown eyed gene from one parent and a blue eyed gene from the other your eyes will be brown since it is dominant.
That is why most people in the world have brown eyes. The only way for someone to have blue eyes is for both parents to give you the recessive blue eyed gene.

It may be found in the future that our sexual orientation is like this.

The problem is eye color is morally neutral. This is the problem with assigning science the task of morality. That any genetic linkage or influence may be found is no proof it is healthy or moral. It is only “proof” it exists.

What happens when we start from a faulty premise? What happens when we cannot properly dfine health and disease?

For your second point, pedophilia and beastiality are sexual actions not naturally occuring sexual orientations or affectations.

What do you mean not “naturally occuring”? The attraction to young children is “natural” by the definitions some use in this thread.

What I am saying is that, IF something occurs in nature it IS physical, natural thing by it very definition. To use natural in another way than the physical, biological, chemical part is to change it definition.

No, this is not true. Natural can mean man’s rational nature as in the natural moral law. That some thing occurs in nature does not make it healthy. It just means it occurs in nature.

A 100% homosexual male who got married to a woman would also be doing something unnatural since his natural sexual orientation would not be towards a female, but towards a male. This is why the Church can and does give annulments to such marriages. There is so much I have learned from this thread, but mostly I have learned that there is so much more to learn about being a human child of God.
Frankie

The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Why? Because it is not ordered toward the good. How can this inclination be “natural” in the sense God ordained it?

 

[Detales]

Many of the comments on here seem to be confusing “natural” with “normal,” “mean,” “average,” “ideal” or some such.

Regarding, for example, the one about stomachs and vomiting. It is natual to eat. It is indeed necessary to eat to live a normal life. When we see the pictures of pitiful people who are starving, we are seeing the natural consequence of not eating. It is the nature of the body to wither if not fed. It is natural that the body will display the consequences of the conditions it is subjected to. In cases of extreme discipline, usual or normal consequences may not occur, as in some saintly manifestations or as the result of some yogic practices. According to its nature, if something is ingested that the digestive system finds harmful, it will vomit it out if it is functioning normally. That is only natural. Natural order is inherent ability to respond to conditions. In the case of humans or trained animals this may be modified by discipline and/or will, which may include metaphysical action.

Now if we are talking about a desired or ideal end or condition, say health, then we are dealing with something called “teleology.” It means, simply, that we adjust our actions according to a desired end. This is also natural, as it is our inborn ability to change according to data and move toward a desired result according to our means. Health is natural and largely normal, but disease is natural as a result of toxins or trauma. It would be un-natural to be stuck with a knife and not bleed, or swallow epicac and not vomit.

It is natural in the human body (and others) for the heart to form, pump blood, and eventually die as part of the body. This is natural, not normal, because in all cases the body dies, and normal is a synonym for “usual,” and both words imply exceptions. Idealy, the heart functions in ways adapting to the momentary needs of the body throughout its activities. In practice, we have cardiologists and sometimes find it needful to say prayers for loved ones because the heart, being a physical organ, is subject to stressors either natural (age) or artificial (stress due to chemicals, emotional disturbances, etc.) It is natural (in accordance with its nature) for the heart to manifest a degree of health or disease according to its circumstances. Similarly it is natural for someone with knowldge and ability to take care of a heart condition by several catagories of means.

It is also natural for vomiting to occur in the case of the ingestion of toxins accidentally or deliberately, though this is not normal. If this reaction of the stomach wasn’t natural, many would die from poisoning who don’t because of the natural ability of the stomach to regurgitate things it finds unacceptable.

For my part, it is important that these terms be clear, as they seem not to be, as evidenced by the original thesis of this thread and the content of many responses. If we are to be legitimatley pious and faithful, it serves us to be clear.

 

[Detales]

Here is a fun bit about what is “natural.” I hope you all have a sense of historical humor.

From Wikipedia, in an article about the historyof table forks:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork

“Some writers of the Roman Catholic Church expressly disapproved of its use, seeing it as “excessive delicacy”: “God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks — his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating.”[5][6]”

[5] ^ A History of the Table Fork
[6] ^ The Irrational Exhuberance of American Dining Etiquette

Here is the quote from [6]: “The 11th Century saw the Venetian Doge, Domenico Selvo marry a Greek princess who brought to his court the practice of eating with forks. At the time, her table manners were seen as scandalous and heretical affectations. It was said: “God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks - his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating. Her death shortly afterward was perceived as divine punishment.”

 

[fix]

The discussion is almost pedantic. What good is there in identifying some action or physical attribute as “natural” without reference to the ultimate good?

Pathology is “natural” the way sin is “natural”. It occurs. That in and of itself says nothing about the goodness or badness of such things.

I fear it is one more example of moral relativism.

 

[NightngaleShane]

I don’t know if homosexuality is natural. If “natural” to you means what is set in someone’s nature, then I can honestly say I have met people who claim to have known they were homosexual since the age of five or six. Now, NORMAL, as previously mentioned, means what is typically most common. That, undoubtedly, would be heterosexuality.

I am not completely sure whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental (there are plenty of articles and philosophies leading to both), but I know several homosexuals who have had stereotypically gay traits from a very young age. For instance, this one gay guy I know loved playing dress-up with his mother’s clothes, enjoyed baking muffins, hated sports because they made him get sweaty/dirty, and enjoyed the Spice Girls He didn’t learn these behaviors, either, as his father tried everything possible to get him to engage in more manly hobbies and his mother was disappointed when she found out how much he loved wearing her clothes.

I do not know for sure that homosexuality is truly “wrong”. Why would someone want to spend his or her life with someone he or she is not romantically and sexually attracted to? Can people really change something as complicated as the gender of who they are interested in? I know the bible states in several passages that homosexuality is wrong, but it only mentions barbaric sex acts, rape, pedophilia, and the lack of hospitality - love is completely out of the picture.

I am predominately heterosexual (I think a few women are very attractive and have felt deep connections towards some but I wouldn’t get romantically or sexually involved) and find it difficult to avoid premarital sexual relations. I know it is a sin and every time I think about something sexual, I pray a Hail Mary. BUT… unlike a homosexual, I know that one day, I will be able to get married to a nice, handsome man and have all the sex I want! I’m not taking a vow of life long celibacy for avoiding it now (like they would be), you know?

At the end of the day, I just say to God, “If it truly IS wrong to be gay, please find a perfect spouse of the opposite sex for my gay friends. Help them overcome their same sex attraction and help them find YOU. And if it is NOT wrong to be gay, then find them a lovely same sex partner and keep them safe from the hatred of the world.”

 

[jkiernan56]

The word Natural is used every so often in the catechism as in Natural law and Natural relations, etc.

But can said first example of ‘man having a natural sexual desire for a woman’ also be a ‘natural law’ such that it is absolute and unbreakable? It doesn’t seem so.

The catechism also states that no one knows where the homosexual inclination comes from and that we as Catholics shouldn’t discriminate against them, but the catechism still says all gay sexual relations are immoral. What can I say that can convince someone of our Catholic position on homosexual sexual relations that works?

Is it natural when a person is born with a heart defect? Is it natural when a person is born with any physical disease or disorder? The same answer to that can be applied to the homosexual who is attracted to the same sex. God’s plan for our lives is stamped in our sexual design. Man was created for woman and woman for man. We also know disorder and disease and death came into the world because of the sin of Adam. I am no expert on this subject, but I think it is possible for a person to be born with the disorder of homosexuality just as with any other disorder. It is not God’s plan for anyone. If I was born with hypoglycemia, it wouldn’t be my fault. But doing nothing about it and living irresponsible with the disorder is not the way to go.

 

[frankieschatz1]

The problem is eye color is morally neutral. This is the problem with assigning science the task of morality. That any genetic linkage or influence may be found is no proof it is healthy or moral. It is only “proof” it exists.

All things natural or by nature are morally neutral. If a child is born without arms this is morally neutral, so too would be our eye color or sexual orientation if they are both naturally occuring things. You have clarified my point.

However, “That any genetic linkage or influence may be found is not proof it is…moral”, but it definitely can be proof if one is healthy or not. For being healthy or unhearthy is a natural, physical property of a human, and many of our human problems of health have been found to be genetically linked.

But lets go back to one of my main questions in this thread. The CCC declares we do not know the ‘genesis’ of homosexuality. (2385 CCC) So it may yet be a naturally based phenomenon. If it is naturally occuring then it should be morally neutral. But the CCC goes on to state it is unnatural and disorder three sentences down.

To state the premise that homosexuality’s cause is unknown and then to say it is unnatural and disordered is a prejudgment at least and a big jump in logical proof at most. So what gives?

What do you mean not “naturally occuring”? The attraction to young children is “natural” by the definitions some use in this thread.
No, this is not true. Natural can mean man’s rational nature as in the natural moral law. That some thing occurs in nature does not make it healthy. It just means it occurs in nature.

You last line here is an excellent point. Some things that occur in nature are not healthy, but it doesn’t make the automatically immoral either.

My reason in starting this thread is to understand the Churches defintion of what is NATURAL in sexuality. When reading the definitions of the word natural in Merriam-Webster there are 50 or so different definitions all surrounding what is in the physical realm.

Man’s rational nature is in the physical realm because it comes from our physical brain. It is an attribute of our brain; a complex and beautiful gift from God. The Church’s use of the word, natural, though, jumps beyond these accepted English definitions. Maybe the Church should use others words that state more clearly what it means rather than the word natural, because it is very misleading.

The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Why? Because it is not ordered toward the good. How can this inclination be “natural” in the sense God ordained it?

Well, Fix, give me examples why the homosexual inclination is not ordered toward to the good. There are many monogamous, loving, mutual relationships between two gay men or two lesbians out there, and many have told me, as a friend and councilor, of many ways that their relationship is definitely beneficial to both of them. If one finds that good does come from such loving relationships how can one say that it is not ordered to the good?

The basic proof that some good can come from such mutual relationships between two people by all standards says that it IS ordered in some ways towards the good. It is true that many sexual relationships between homosexual men and women are very unhealthy and produce no good just as many types of sexual relationships between heterosexuals are unhealthy and produce no good.

The Church does not condemn all heterosexual relationships though. Thus this begs a new question; if good can be found in some types of relationships between homosexuals why does the Church condemn them all? Or is the Church unwilling to hear basic human relationship stories that contradict some of its moral teaching? Maybe so.

God bless us all, but the Church has been wrong in the past about some of its morals: ie, Inquisition, treatment of Jews and non-Christian, Crusades, etc. Pope John Paul II apologized to the world for many of them in his 2000 News Year’s Day address. I believe that man is a true Saint.
Frankie

 

[fix]

Well, Fix, give me examples why the homosexual inclination is not ordered toward to the good.

Well, you can start here:

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (*Gen *1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “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”.(4)

There are many monogamous, loving, mutual relationships between two gay men or two lesbians out there, and many have told me, as a friend and councilor, of many ways that their relationship is definitely beneficial to both of them. If one finds that good does come from such loving relationships how can one say that it is not ordered to the good?

Any acts contrary to the moral law are bad. How is contradicting God’s will good?

if good can be found in some types of relationships between homosexuals why does the Church condemn them all? Or is the Church unwilling to hear basic human relationship stories that contradict some of its moral teaching? Maybe so.

What are you calling good? Some acts are always evil.

God bless us all, but the Church has been wrong in the past about some of its morals: ie, Inquisition, treatment of Jews and non-Christian, Crusades, etc. Pope John Paul II apologized to the world for many of them in his 2000 News Year’s Day address. I believe that man is a true Saint.
Frankie

The Church cannot err on these issues. The last Pope never apologized for any teaching on faith or morals. Let us be clear on this.

 

[frankieschatz1]

Well, you can start here:

Any acts contrary to the moral law are bad. How is contradicting God’s will good?

What are you calling good? Some acts are always evil.

The Church cannot err on these issues. The last Pope never apologized for any teaching on faith or morals. Let us be clear on this.

Fix,
The proof your give to back up the Churches moral precepts is just by re-quoting the Churches moral precepts. Explaining something is bad by saying ‘because its bad’ doesn’t explain in any way WHY it is bad. A Parent only uses this explaination to their child when they are young because they can’t grasp the explanation as to WHY its bad yet. When the child is older more explanations are needed, because the child CAN understand more.

My Qs here in this thread have to deal with understanding why the Church says the statements it does on Homosexuality in 2357 CCC. If the genesis of homosexuality is unknown why do we say it is unnatural or disordered in and of itself? This seems as written an illogical conclusion. If one does not know the cause of something one can not say conclusively that it is natural or unnatural, ordered or disordered.

What proof is there that there is no genuine affection among gay people? In my own humble counciling efforts both gay couples and straight couples have shared with me the intensity of their love for each other in varied ways. I can humbly say that I am unable to gather any differences between gay or straight couples in their expressions of genuine affections for each other. If even one gay couple can have genuine affection for each other than this statement in 2357 is in error. The Church has not examined every gay couple so I don’t know how it can make such a statement.

Why is sexual complementarity so important in a relationship between two people? Sexual complementarity is a very broad concept. I goes all the way from meaning male parts and female parts, to sharing sexual roles to the ability for flexibility and learning from the other differences. If it means only a relationship can exist when their are male parts and females, but we can find a gay relationship that has worked for fifty years (of which there are three that I have worked with) then this is a statement which is also unfounded.

Fix, you state that homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. The Church has made exceptions to this from allowing marriages to women with hysterectomies to marrying couples in their 90s. All sex in these relationship close the sexual act to the gift of life yet they are allowed. The only way they could have babies is by a miracle of God and God can do miracle anywhere, anywhere if He wishes.

There are so many questions about the four small paragraphs about homosexuality in the CCC that many statements are only moral precepts with out proof or a with minimum explanation. How am I to try to up hold our Catholic teaching on homosexual activities if even my own humble practice finds so many exceptions to these statements? It is difficult indeed.
Frankie

 

[Vico]

We are instructed that we have inherited what Adam (will, power, assertion) and Eve (consciousness, love, receptivity) experienced: the knowledge of good and evil, so that is one meaning of natural. Before that knowledge they easily communed with God and did not perceive their nakedness (we read that in Genesis), the original natural state. As early church fathers have written, the most natural (ordered) and original state, that we would love to have again, is feeling God continuously. Our spouse can be a “help meet” balancing us more so we can perfect that perception, but that isn’t about procreation specifically but about unselfishness. Have you read or heard of the unconsummated marriage of Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary, the spiritual marriage called the Josephite Marriage? It demonstrates the perfect love of God and spouse.

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” - Genesis 2:18

 

[frankieschatz1]

Well, you can start here:

Any acts contrary to the moral law are bad. How is contradicting God’s will good?

What are you calling good? Some acts are always evil.

The Church cannot err on these issues. The last Pope never apologized for any teaching on faith or morals. Let us be clear on this.

Fix, our last Pope, may he rest in the bosom of Christ, apologized many times in his reign. He did not apologize for our Catholic teachings on faith, but he did apologize for the immorality Catholics have done for the sake of truth. See his Mar 12, 2000 address (which I believe Cardinal Ratzinger our present Pope helped write). Any internet google under - John Paul II apologizes - will give you much reading. The Church from Rome began the crusades, inquisitions, and many other atrocities toward Jews and non-chrisians alike, and for this John Paul II did apologize to and for the whole Church. The way he said it was much more elegant than I stated. Do read them. John Paul II make me proud to be a Catholic and humble in the same breathe.

 

[fix]

Fix, our last Pope, may he rest in the bosom of Christ, apologized many times in his reign.

For the way some in the Church acted, not for any doctrine or teaching on morals.

He did not apologize for our Catholic teachings on faith, but he did apologize for the immorality Catholics have done for the sake of truth. See his Mar 12, 2000 address (which I believe Cardinal Ratzinger our present Pope helped write). Any internet google under - John Paul II apologizes - will give you much reading. The Church from Rome began the crusades, inquisitions, and many other atrocities toward Jews and non-chrisians alike, and for this John Paul II did apologize to and for the whole Church. The way he said it was much more elegant than I stated. Do read them. John Paul II make me proud to be a Catholic and humble in the same breathe.

I have read them, several times. None of those events make your point though. BTW, the apology does not mean those particular events were wrong. It proves Catholics can act wrongly.

 

[fix]

The proof your give to back up the Churches moral precepts is just by re-quoting the Churches moral precepts. Explaining something is bad by saying ‘because its bad’ doesn’t explain in any way WHY it is bad. A Parent only uses this explaination to their child when they are young because they can’t grasp the explanation as to WHY its bad yet. When the child is older more explanations are needed, because the child CAN understand more.

The Church gives explanations. Are you open to them? God ordained our first parents as man and woman. He ordained a natural order and an order of grace. He ordained complementarity.

My Qs here in this thread have to deal with understanding why the Church says the statements it does on Homosexuality in 2357 CCC. If the genesis of homosexuality is unknown why do we say it is unnatural or disordered in and of itself?

The CCC says:. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

That psychology has not determined the etiology does not mean it is good. It means it is not known at this point. As I said before science cannot determine right and wrong. No matter what the cause is the inclination is not prdered correctly. It cannot be as it contradicts man’s nature.

This seems as written an illogical conclusion. If one does not know the cause of something one can not say conclusively that it is natural or unnatural, ordered or disordered.

Because the “medical” cause does not make it morally good. It simply explains why it occurs.

What proof is there that there is no genuine affection among gay people? In my own humble counciling efforts both gay couples and straight couples have shared with me the intensity of their love for each other in varied ways. I can humbly say that I am unable to gather any differences between gay or straight couples in their expressions of genuine affections for each other. If even one gay couple can have genuine affection for each other than this statement in 2357 is in error. The Church has not examined every gay couple so I don’t know how it can make such a statement.

Everyone can have affection, but that is no proof our acts or desires are correctly ordered.

Why is sexual complementarity so important in a relationship between two people?

Read the Theology of the body. Plenty there to review.

Sexual complementarity is a very broad concept. I goes all the way from meaning male parts and female parts, to sharing sexual roles to the ability for flexibility and learning from the other differences. If it means only a relationship can exist when their are male parts and females, but we can find a gay relationship that has worked for fifty years (of which there are three that I have worked with) then this is a statement which is also unfounded.

Man is a composite of body and soul. The physical is not unimportant, but it goes even deeper than that.

Fix, you state that homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. The Church has made exceptions to this from allowing marriages to women with hysterectomies to marrying couples in their 90s. All sex in these relationship close the sexual act to the gift of life yet they are allowed. The only way they could have babies is by a miracle of God and God can do miracle anywhere, anywhere if He wishes.

Unintentionally sterile opposite sex married people still have acts that retain their relationship to life. Same sex people cannot not.

There are so many questions about the four small paragraphs about homosexuality in the CCC that many statements are only moral precepts with out proof or a with minimum explanation. How am I to try to up hold our Catholic teaching on homosexual activities if even my own humble practice finds so many exceptions to these statements? It is difficult indeed.
Frankie

The CCC is a start and a reference not a moral theology text. I gently suggest you read the theology of the body and other works like the Vatican documents which give references to other works.

Also, if you are a Catholic I would politely suggest it is wise to have the attitude the Church is the authority in this matter. Pray and ask God to enlighten you more but start from the position of submission to God through His Church.

 

[jkiernan56]

Fix,
The proof your give to back up the Churches moral precepts is just by re-quoting the Churches moral precepts. Explaining something is bad by saying ‘because its bad’ doesn’t explain in any way WHY it is bad. A Parent only uses this explaination to their child when they are young because they can’t grasp the explanation as to WHY its bad yet. When the child is older more explanations are needed, because the child CAN understand more.

Most cars today were designed by the manufacturer to run on gasoline. According to its design, it is not “good” to put water into the gas tank. The manufacturer has given us instructions on how to to operate the car they made. Natural = what is according to nature. Unnatural = what is contrary to nature

What is God’s design and plan for sexuality? If you are curious, read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, that is if you no longer want to put water in the tank.