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

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankieschatz1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Word! Self evident? Then why did God make so much of it? I myself am not about to say. I don’t know why I have an appendix (I beleive I do; haven’t seen it.) I don’t know the purpose for bacteria that live under the sea floor near volcanos. I don’t know the purpose of billions of galaxies.

I do know that there are three kinds of business; God’s, someone else’s, and my own. If I am not in my own, I’m trespassing. I can guess, and that’s legit. But to say on the behalf of Nature? That in my book is arrogant usurpation of prerogative.

GOD is the creator. The life we see about us, as far as I can determin, is the unfolding pressure of His Creation. It will seek out and fill every possible nook and cranny of adaptability. I just don’t see in this regard that the fall of Man distributes over an innocent creation. It doesn’t compute that God would make a perfect Creation, allow it to “break” itself in one single aspect and make that the ruination of the whole thing, and on top of that to necessitate His personal managing and repair of the mess on an itty bitty planet that you couldn’t find if we dropped you even a light year from here. (Our own galaxy is 100,000 light years across, and its total mass has just been revised upwards to nearly the size of the Andromeda galaxy, our nearst galactic neighbor, 2.2 million light years away.)

I don’t know why many things we know of exist or what purpose they might have, though again I have my guess: it is how God knows His Creation as an experience. That experience is certainly not possible from the standpoint of eternality, as that has NO component of duration. Love is an unchanging constant. Yet it’s manifestations might appear in every possible way. That includes, I would think, all the possible ways of loving one another.

Here it might be noted that if “They will know we are Christians by our love,” we might look at the whole spectrum of displays of degrees and kinds of love in heterosexual pairings, even those blessed by Holy Mother Church. Is the love what is priamary, or the production of children? Certainly producing as many children as possible used to be a time honored way to grow one’s own faction. But the body is a mammal, and as we have seen in many instances, overpopulation wreaks havoc. At this point in time we are using the resources of way more than one planet to keep a small percentage of humans in comfort. Six percent of the world’s population owns more than half its wealth. The bottom 50% own about 1%, have poor water supply and sanitation, and have not heard a dial tone. Sure, let’s have more children??? Maybe the purpose of homosexuality is to stop the rampant production of bodies to feed and relagate the nature of relationships to exploring only the love dimension?

It might be useful, if you are basing your stance on the Church teaching in these matters, to remember you are dealing with an institution that only recently forgave Galileo. FORGAVE!!! When they should have been praising him through the roof for expotentially expanding the posssibilities of glorifying God.

The point here is that interpretations of the scripture change. And we know now that the whole standpoint of their interpetation is under scrutiny. Think about it. Fish on Friday was an economic bonus granted to the market in Rome. Celibacy was largely instituted to preserve the property of the Church from inheritance. And on and on.

What I’m saying is that despite the many wonderful things that can be attributed to the Church, it has made mistakes, especially in matters of science and often in morals. Therefore it may be prudent to have a more forbearing attitude about such things.

So, maybe give yourself a break? Go fishing, look at the stars, or the sunrise, or whatever you love to do, and love Nature and consider the Infinite works of God. They are neither small nor fathomable, yet present for our acceptance and wonder.
 
Contrary to reports in The New York Times and
other conduits of misinformation about the Church, the
Holy See was not on this occasion finally throwing in
the towel and admitting that the earth revolves around
the sun. That particular debate, so far as the Church
was concerned, had been closed since at least 1741 when
Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to
the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.
Click to expand...
Galileo’s condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no
way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma…
The Galileo Affair
Click to expand...
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Hi Verbum,
I understand your discomfort with the word I used.
However, you are using a non-word.
There seems to be a limited reading of words.
My understanding is that homosexual pairing does not imply homosexuality.
In the usage I have made, sex and gender are synonyms.
However, it is not unknown, fact is, it is quite common for canids in ‘single gender pairings’ to indulge in mutual mounting, whether they be dogs of b|tches.

That though is by the bye.
I have made it clear that what you class as homosexual activity is medically dangerous, and I accept that it may be sinful.
Petting, kissing and cuddling though is a different matter.
Click to expand...
With all due respect…humans are not dogs. We have rational minds and souls. We have free will. We are created in the image and likeness of God. What a dog pack does or doesn’t do has no basis in what I should do or in Natural Law. I don’t eat my young, for instance. Animal behavior and human behavior are two different things. And when we speak of Natural Law, we aren’t speaking of what comes “naturally”. Which has been explained to death on this thread.
 
Jennifer_J said:
And when we speak of Natural Law, we aren’t speaking of what comes “naturally”. Which has been explained to death on this thread.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It can be explained every possible way and still rejected. The proofs are good, simply rejected for the usual reasons.
 
Jennifer_J said:
With all due respect…humans are not dogs. We have rational minds and souls. We have free will. We are created in the image and likeness of God. What a dog pack does or doesn’t do has no basis in what I should do or in Natural Law. I don’t eat my young, for instance. Animal behavior and human behavior are two different things. And when we speak of Natural Law, we aren’t speaking of what comes “naturally”. Which has been explained to death on this thread.
Click to expand...
Hi Jennifer,
I was not likening Humans to dogs, or more precisely, wolves, except as an illustration of how te most basic of instincts arise.
I was explaining how pair bonding was more basic than breeding-pair bonding.
And how same-gender pair bonding is important to a hunting pack, whether it be of wolves, or humans.
You may not like it, but the wolf-pack organization is a very good model of human hunter-gatherer organization, even to the point of keeping the females safe, hence serious hunting was/is carried out by the males, leaving the females to run the ‘home’.

Actually, though, all living creatures and entities have souls, that is what makes them living, as apart from inanimate, having no soul, from Latin ‘anima’, soul.
Where we draw the line between ‘immortal soul’, and ‘animal soul’, is mute.
Traditionally, on Earth, only humans have an immortal soul, but that begs the question.

You have been brought up, or should I say, brought down, with your teaching.
Humans ARE animals, primates, of the order, mammalia.
Dogs differ from Humans only in the tiniest of detail comparatively.
All living entities are created in the Image of G_d, the only difference being the quality of the image, which is dependent upon the size of the canvas, and the breadth of the brush.
Whereas a microbe image has a few million pixels per image, a human has uncountable terrapixels per image.
Whereas the number of zeros in the number of pixels for a microbe, and those of a human may be 20 or more, the number separating a dog from a human is less than one.
Non human creatures exhibiting self recognition, creative intelligence, and awareness of death, are few. They include elephants, some higher primates, some whales, a few birds, and most canids.
Historically, only white males were credited with having immortal souls. Some more primitive societies still believe this lie.
As we recognise the self-awareness of some members of our co-creation, we will, of necessity have to accept that what separates us from our near neighbours is no more than a matter of degree, like that which separates our brightest and our dimmest.
Do not consider our lesser bretheren so poorly.
In case of need, I am sure that, in the absence of a medic, you would happily accept the services, and even the medication of a vet.
What will cure a dog, will in 99.99% of cases, cure a human, though the vet’s thermometer might indicate that you are a little cold.
 
fix said:
[sign] Originally Posted by Jennifer J

And when we speak of Natural Law, we aren’t speaking of what comes “naturally”. Which has been explained to death on this thread[/sign]Exactly. It can be explained every possible way and still rejected. The proofs are good, simply rejected for the usual reasons.
Click to expand...
I agree.
But I was not talking about what comes ‘naturally’, I was, as Mother Church invokes, talking about teleology, or that which serves a purpose.
I explained how it was only by not seeing the more basic purposes, that the so-called dis-ordered behaviours were were cited.
As I explained these deeper purposes, the disorderedness disappeared.
So by basing your ‘natural’ law on a limited purpose, you define quite logical, and purposeful behavior as disordered.

The fighting technique of the Greek Hopplyte soldiers was based upon paired warriors.
Homosexuality was encouraged within these pairs, to improve their pair bonding, vital for the paired warrior fighting technique, so that each member of a pair could understand the intents of his partner from the slightest gesture, leaving the opposing warrior(s) completely in the dark.

Again, this is not a reference to nature, but to teleology, or purposefulness.
 
Veritatis splendor
At this point the true meaning of the natural law can be understood: it refers to man’s proper and primordial nature, the “nature of the human person”,89 which is *the person himself in the unity of soul and body, *in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end. “The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body”.90
Click to expand...
Only in reference to the human person in his “unified totality”, that is, as “a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit”,91 can the specifically human meaning of the body be grasped. Indeed, natural inclinations take on moral relevance only insofar as they refer to the human person and his authentic fulfilment, a fulfilment which for that matter can take place always and only in human nature. By rejecting all manipulations of corporeity which alter its human meaning, the Church serves man and shows him the path of true love, the only path on which he can find the true God. The natural law thus understood does not allow for any division between freedom and nature. Indeed, these two realities are harmoniously bound together, and each is intimately linked to the other.
Click to expand...
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Hi Jennifer,
I was not likening Humans to dogs, or more precisely, wolves, except as an illustration of how te most basic of instincts arise.
I was explaining how pair bonding was more basic than breeding-pair bonding.
And how same-gender pair bonding is important to a hunting pack, whether it be of wolves, or humans.
You may not like it, but the wolf-pack organization is a very good model of human hunter-gatherer organization, even to the point of keeping the females safe, hence serious hunting was/is carried out by the males, leaving the females to run the ‘home’.

Actually, though, all living creatures and entities have souls, that is what makes them living, as apart from inanimate, having no soul, from Latin ‘anima’, soul.
Where we draw the line between ‘immortal soul’, and ‘animal soul’, is mute.
Traditionally, on Earth, only humans have an immortal soul, but that begs the question.

You have been brought up, or should I say, brought down, with your teaching.
Humans ARE animals, primates, of the order, mammalia.
Dogs differ from Humans only in the tiniest of detail comparatively.
All living entities are created in the Image of G_d, the only difference being the quality of the image, which is dependent upon the size of the canvas, and the breadth of the brush.
Whereas a microbe image has a few million pixels per image, a human has uncountable terrapixels per image.
Whereas the number of zeros in the number of pixels for a microbe, and those of a human may be 20 or more, the number separating a dog from a human is less than one.
Non human creatures exhibiting self recognition, creative intelligence, and awareness of death, are few. They include elephants, some higher primates, some whales, a few birds, and most canids.
Historically, only white males were credited with having immortal souls. Some more primitive societies still believe this lie.
As we recognise the self-awareness of some members of our co-creation, we will, of necessity have to accept that what separates us from our near neighbours is no more than a matter of degree, like that which separates our brightest and our dimmest.
Do not consider our lesser bretheren so poorly.
In case of need, I am sure that, in the absence of a medic, you would happily accept the services, and even the medication of a vet.
What will cure a dog, will in 99.99% of cases, cure a human, though the vet’s thermometer might indicate that you are a little cold.
Click to expand...
You know what would be really great, is if you’d stop talking like I’m stupid…I’m not. 👍
You also have very many grave errors on your post. Yes, all living things have “souls” but the human soul is very different, immortal and rational–we are made to live with God forever, if we so choose that in this life. All other life forms cease to exhist when they die. There is no heaven for animals.
We are classified as animals, at least God chose us to have animal form, but He, infact, ELEVATED us from the animals to have a rational and immortal soul. This is Church teaching. I do not take my behavior from animals, if I did, I would be able to eat my young or only mate when I’m fertile. So we share certain characteristics, probably, but that makes no difference, because we are called to a higher order of existance. What separates us is night and day—we were created for God, by God to live with God. He gave us immortal and rational souls and WE are created in the image and likeness of God, not dogs, not cats, not anything else…
 
Thnkyou Fix, for the reference.
I still respect JPII, but it must be admitted that this highly educated writing is somewhat on the obscure side.
I fall back to my simple basics.
If the purpose being served by the activity is not disordered, then activity supporting that purpose, provided that it is not otherwise harmful, is not disordered.
That is, if single gender pairings can serve an ordered purpose, then activities reinforcing that pairing, e.g.kissing, petting and cuddling, but not any activity which might be physically, or spiritually harmful to either of the pair, is also ordered.
 
We know certain actions are intrinsically evil. They can never be justifed no matter the inclination, disposition, intent, circumstances, desire, or anything else.
 
Again, let’s look at history and ourselves, and perhaps say something more along the lines of "Some of us beleive that certain actions are intrinsically evil. We believe thay can never be justifed no matter the inclination, disposition, intent, circumstances, desire, or anything else.
 
fix said:
We know certain actions are intrinsically evil. They can never be justifed no matter the inclination, disposition, intent, circumstances, desire, or anything else.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm.
I am not so sure.
Thou shalt not kill!
Or if you like:
Do no murder.
The first is simple and easy to understand.
The second is perverse, for what is it about killing that makes it murder?
The actual commandment, as the Jews understand it should read:
Kill not wantonly.
In other words, only if it is necessary, or unavoidable.
That is, in order to protect yourself, or someone you are responsible for.
Likewise many other things, which in their simplest of concept, are easily defined as evil, can be justified by circumstance.
So, Friend, beware.
Defining what is intrinsically evil is not simple.
The first approximation to that definition ould be:
To do unnecessary harm.
Now you must define necessary, and harm.
You will be amazed at how rapidly this gets exiremely complicated.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Hmmmmm.
I am not so sure.
Thou shalt not kill!
Or if you like:
Do no murder.
The first is simple and easy to understand.
The second is perverse, for what is it about killing that makes it murder?
The actual commandment, as the Jews understand it should read:
Kill not wantonly.
In other words, only if it is necessary, or unavoidable.
That is, in order to protect yourself, or someone you are responsible for.
Likewise many other things, which in their simplest of concept, are easily defined as evil, can be justified by circumstance.
So, Friend, beware.
Defining what is intrinsically evil is not simple.
The first approximation to that definition ould be:
To do unnecessary harm.
Now you must define necessary, and harm.
You will be amazed at how rapidly this gets exiremely complicated.
Click to expand...
No, you’d be surprised at how easily some fall into the trap of thinking anything is okay—moral relativity. There ARE absolute truths. There ARE intrinsic evils. There is a Natural Law written on the hearts of men–we need but listen…
 
Detales said:
Again, let’s look at history and ourselves, and perhaps say something more along the lines of "Some of us beleive that certain actions are intrinsically evil. We believe thay can never be justifed no matter the inclination, disposition, intent, circumstances, desire, or anything else.
Click to expand...
Some accept what is true and some reject what is true. The reasons for the rejection may vary as does culpability.

IOW, there is an objective, absolute moral truth no matter how often it is rejected by the few or the many.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Hmmmmm.
I am not so sure.
Thou shalt not kill!
Or if you like:
Do no murder.
The first is simple and easy to understand.
The second is perverse, for what is it about killing that makes it murder?
The actual commandment, as the Jews understand it should read:
Kill not wantonly.
In other words, only if it is necessary, or unavoidable.
That is, in order to protect yourself, or someone you are responsible for.
Likewise many other things, which in their simplest of concept, are easily defined as evil, can be justified by circumstance.
So, Friend, beware.
Defining what is intrinsically evil is not simple.
The first approximation to that definition ould be:
To do unnecessary harm.
Now you must define necessary, and harm.
You will be amazed at how rapidly this gets exiremely complicated.
Click to expand...
All types of things can be complex but that is no proof we cannot know with certainty what moral truth is.

I think the CCC says it best, and concisely:

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
 
Jennifer_J said:
[sign]Defining what is intrinsically evil is not simple.
The first approximation to that definition would be:
To do unnecessary harm.
Now you must define necessary, and harm.
You will be amazed at how rapidly this gets exiremely complicated.[/sign]No, you’d be surprised at how easily some fall into the trap of thinking anything is okay—moral relativity. There ARE absolute truths. There ARE intrinsic evils. There is a Natural Law written on the hearts of men–we need but listen…
Click to expand...
Dear Jennifer,
If you had read carefully these last five lines, you would see that I do not try to say anything goes.
Only that what might be permitted in certain circumstances can be difficult to define.
In normal circumstances, this is not a problem, but in difficult circumstances. . . . .
 
In fact, I completely agree with CCC 1958 and 1960. However, my ground for interpreting those is radically different from yours, it seems. My perspective is as different from yours, I would guess, as the before and after experience one has when seeing for the first time the actual image behind one of those “magic pictures” that look at first like nothing capable of comprehension. Others who have had this or a similar experience with such a vision regarding teachings usually have a good screaming laugh at themselves for having been blind and joyfully get on with things. It is that radical.

ALL of the ideas in the Church have a valid, true, practical, and transformative root, but our ordinary child like interpretations will not directly give it to us, for all the good the Church has done. Once understood, everything becomes clear. One may remain a devout, practicing moral Catholic, but one won’t see the same Church. One will see a Glory beyond comprehension. One will never be faced with such delimas of doubt as many have faced and written about, even recently with great fanfare. Those doubts will seem as the crude toys of a child. At the same time, one will be incapable of making some of the behavioristic interpretations touted on here that are the result of literalism.

There is an astounding reason why Jesus reprised Deut 8:3 when He was tempted. He said to the deceiver, after He had been led into the desert and had fasted for forty days and was famished: “It is not by bread alone that man lives, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Bread is ordinarily the symbol for a higher understanding than stone, or literalism. If so, what do you suppose He might have been talking about? It doesn’t say in the Bible what Jesus taught in the profound instances noted in Mark 4:33,34. Don’t you wonder?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top