Said the Vatican, quoted in "Vatican says it will not bless same-sex unions, calling them a 'sin'" (CNN).
The statement says that gays and lesbians, as individuals, may receive a blessing if they live according to Church teaching. But blessing same-sex unions, the Vatican said, would send a sign that the Catholic Church approves and encourages "a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God."...
The Vatican provided the assurance that "the negative judgment on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex does not imply a judgment on persons."
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
पोस्ट्स
१६४ टिप्पण्या:
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
That would be consistent with the Christian orthodoxy.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
>>
Yes. That has been part of Catholic teaching for 1900+ years depending on when you think the Epistles were written.
So is the Vatican OK with gay marriage? Probably not. Their attempt to dodge the issue didn’t actually work.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
That is the Church's teaching, and what history has shown to be best.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
Exactly. Furthermore, the opposite sex partners must be married--to each other.
Ann, did what is in your last sentence come as a surprise to you??
Not just Catholic teaching, of course, but the Bible, which is the foundation of Christian theology.
So is the Vatican OK with gay marriage? Probably not.
They explicitly expressed their opposition to gay marriage. This is another attempt to explain the idea of "hate the sin, but love the sinner".
Basically if you are gay, and don't act on those feelings, the church is fine with you.
See Milo.
I suppose it might be possible for two people of the same sex to have a celibate union.
Did people actually think they weren't going to say this? I know IQs are dropping all across the world, but that is objectively stupid to think such a decision was going to be anything but what was just announced.
There are plenty of churches and organizations that will celebrate whichever degeneracy you choose and bake you a cake. Go there.
You don't have to fuck everything you bump into, y'know.
I'm in a marriage between opposite sex partners, but it almost doesn't seem worth the effort. "Fornication" is much shorter than "objectively ordered sexual relations".
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
Yes. That is correct. Within the Church. Outside of the Church....do whatever the eff you want.
Those are the tenets of the Catholic Church. Like it or not.
I suppose it might be possible for two people of the same sex to have a celibate union.
Sounds like this is the type of union poor Milo Yiannopoulos' boyfriend now finds himself in.
As I read this, the church would bless a same sex marriage as long as the partners in that marriage did not have sex. They might get married, for example, for tax reasons, and they might live at the same address without ever having sex.
I see I am repeating a point made earlier by Jupiter.
Just last night I had a conversation with a woman who attends Mass every Sunday and used to do Eucharistic Adoration at odd hours.
She's essentially opposed to marriage between people over 60 and is perfectly fine with sex without the benefit of marriage. I told her she was a hypocrite. She dodged and gave me doublespeak.
Catholics in America pick and choose what Church rules and teachings they want to follow. That's part of the reason many Catholics justified voting for Biden. I guess I'm in that group too but, of course, I didn't vote for Biden and will never vote for another Dem.
wait a minute!
is our Professor SURPRISED TO LEARN, that fornication outside of lawful marriage is a Sin?
Sometimes, i wonder if people have EVER read the bible?
(wait 'til she finds out what Jesus said about divorce!!)
What's the point of marriage if there is no sex?
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
Yes. That is Catholic teaching on sex in a nutshell.
They might get married, for example, for tax reasons
legal marriage and Holy marriage have Always been two separate things
And don't forget artificial birth control remains verboten. And the sin of Onan. And in vitro fertilization. And certain covid vaccines. And remarriage after divorce.
The number of American Catholics in agreement with all this is becoming vanishing small as covid disproportionately knocks off older Catholics.
But RC is catholic, so you can marry any other unmarried person of the opposite sex outside your family on the planet. (Although that person should tell the person they promise to raise the kids Catholic).
“ Furthermore, the opposite sex partners must be married--to each other.”
Damn. Another loophole blasted.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
Posted by Ann Altho
Sorry but when has the church NOT said that?
Transgender couplets, friends with "benefits" ("polygamy" without commitment), too, and other socially progressive arrangements. Planned Parent/hood to clear any "burdens" that may be conceived. How very politically congruent ("="). That said, civil unions for all eligible couples (by Nature/nature) and couplets (why? a sociopolitical construct).
"If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners."
Sorry but when has the church NOT said that?
Yes, despite progress of secular interests, motives, and incentives, Christianity has been extraordinarily inclusive and consistent.
"They might get married, for example, for tax reasons"
gilbar said... legal marriage and Holy marriage have Always been two separate things
Exactly. People can get married outside of the Church. Just don't expect/demand that the Catholic Church...or any religious institution....bless your marriage.
They (Catholic Church) aren't stopping anyone from getting married. They just will not sanctify something that is forbidden by their doctrine.
Live with it.
So is the Vatican OK with gay marriage?
They seem to be tolerant of transgender unions, but, as a matter of principle, to remain inclusive, and consistent, do not endorse it.
The more distant the Catholic beacon appears, the further we've drifted away.
And I say that as a career sinner.
Furthermore, the opposite sex partners must be married--to each other.
Hey, don't harsh their mellow, man. Free sex. Free abortion. Shared/shifted... delegated responsibility. Contemporary Chinese wisdom says this is forward-looking in consensus with their Western peers.
Our ideas about gay life are based on lies that sprang from Harvey Milk and the People's Temple cult. We need to re-examine what happened there, and it's ramifications and repercussions, in order to truly understand where we are now.
While I'm not a Catholic, I'm glad to see they can see through a deceit that sprang from that most Catholic of cities, San Francisco.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
And that sex better be "open to the transmission of life" to boot! So, no more sloppy BJ's, you hellbound deviants, you!
Do these people who are surprised by this ruling not understand that even "polishing the toy soldier" is a sinful act? Look at it this way -- the bar is set so high because it's an indication of how far we all have to go. Salvation is not bought on the cheap, and we don't get there at all without the aid of God's grace & forgiveness.
Whew! That was close. At first I thought they were going to forbid priests having sex with alter boys!
Catholic doctrine is, roughly, sex is for procreation, it is irresponsible to procreate outside of marriage, therefore sex outside of marriage is forbidden.
There's nothing explicitly anti-gay about it, but holding gay people to the same standards it holds everyone else to means that gay sex is not permitted regardless of relationship status.
Readering, misunderstanding the Bible, asserts: And don't forget artificial birth control remains verboten. And the sin of Onan..
This may be Catholic doctrine but is not based on Scripture. Onan was not chastised for masturbation but for refusing to impregnate his dead brother's widow. He had been instructed of God to marry his brother's widow and have offspring for his dead brother but, according to Genesis 38:9: And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Not just Catholic teaching, of course, but the Bible, which is the foundation of Christian theology.
Actually, the Bible is pretty tolerant of the marriage of one man with two or more women. See, e.g., Dt 21:15-17 ("If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.")
The reality of American life we'll soon have to wrestle with - Harvey Milk's lies, MLK was a rapist, blacks killed Malcolm X, etc. - should make any realist smile, because we KNEW this was all bullshit.
The Catholic Church stays the Catholic church.
Yea?!?
Catholic doctrine is, roughly, sex is for procreation, it is irresponsible to procreate outside of marriage, therefore sex outside of marriage is forbidden.
>>
You are meant to be "open to the possibility" of procreation during the sexual act. Homosexual sex acts can never result in children so they're wrong ('disordered')
This is why, to one of the above posts, 60 year old married couples can still have sex with each other. After all, God worked a miracle with Abraham and Sarah.
So is the Vatican OK with gay marriage? Probably not. Their attempt to dodge the issue didn’t actually work.
Jesus loves all the people. Counsels against their actions that veer into sin.
Jesus "is not OK" with murder, but forgives those murderers that seek forgiveness.
This is not complicated.
Actually, the Bible is pretty tolerant of the marriage of one man with two or more women
Christianity is new testament.
Did anyone think the Vatican would say something different?
"Actually, the Bible is pretty tolerant of the marriage of one man with two or more women"
How is that? It isn't what people are told to do from the beginning and is always fraught with conflict and unhappiness.
What if, biology not withstanding, they identify as opposite sex?
Onan was not chastised for masturbation but for refusing to impregnate his dead brother's widow.
Actually, he was condemned (not just "chastized") because the way he chose to avoid impregnating his dead brother's widow (i.e., coitus interruptus) was regarded as "a detestable thing" (Gn 38:10 (Douai-Rheims Version)). Onan's father, Judah, comes in for some criticism for not marrying his third son to Tamar so that he should impregnate her, but this failure isn't regarded as in nearly the same category as Onan's sin. (For that matter, Judah's impregnation of Tamar, who had intercourse with him while disguised as a temple prostitute, is viewed as pretty bad, but not the same kind of "detestable thing" as what his son Onan had done.)
Michael P said...I'm in a marriage between opposite sex partners
--
Polygamy is not uncommon among African Catholics.
How is that?
Uh, because the Law of Moses explicitly permits it?
The Church, like Islam and Traditional Judaism, subscribe to the Bible's teaching on this subject (i.e., a blessed union between biological males and females), although The Church parts company on the teaching of divorce.
I find this Vatican statement surprising for two reasons: first, this should have been made a long time ago; and, second, this is the Vatican's first statement since The Pope met with The Ayatollah. Could this have a subject of discussion between the representatives of two major faith traditions on differences of fundamentals and creed? For example, neither The Pope nor The Ayatollah would be expected on the doctrines of the Trinity or the One; but, on gays a gesture of seeing "eye to eye" makes for good optics.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
That's correct. That's church law that has existed for over 2000 years, so this really isn't news.
In 2009, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was meeting in Minneapolis to decide if they would allow openly homosexual pastors in their churches. On the morning of when they were going to vote on this, a tornado ripped through the city of Minneapolis, damaging the Convention Center where they were meeting, Completely destroying the tent outside where they were preparing for lunch for the group, and, most ironically, ripping the cross off of the steeple of the nearest ELCA church, about a mile away. Not one person was so much as slightly injured, in a tornado, in the middle of a large city. They went ahead voted to allow it anyway.
Mock turtle: huh? You mean to assert, Francis misreading the Bible, not Readering, right?
@mockturtle,
This may be Catholic doctrine but is not based on Scripture.
Wait, what?
If anything, the Protestant Reformers thought masturbation to be even more of an affront to morality than than did Medieval Catholicism.
And, until the 20th C, there was basically no difference between the RCC & the major Protestant denominations on the issue of birth control. Both Calvin & Luther wrote against it on basically the same grounds as rabbinic Judaism, as contrary to the edict of "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it" (Gen 9:7).
Christianity is new testament.
Actually, Christianity rejects your Marcionist view of Scripture.
Daniel Jackson, that's an interesting angle, but I suspect pronouncements like this have a much longer and more controlled gestation period.
The Crack Emcee: "Our ideas about gay life are based on lies that sprang from Harvey Milk and the People's"
Actually, our ideas about homosexual life pre-date Harvey Milk et al by about 3,000+ years in terms of documented ideas and presumably alot further back than that in terms of undocumented ideas.
But I guess you were "close enough" in your timeline.
Again, as an objective, ontological matter, in the natural order of things, as revealed undeniably in the human body, a man is made specifically for physical joinder with a woman, and vice versa, in such fashion that the man might transmit pro-creative genetic material into the woman, there to be met by her pro-creative genetic material and thereby create a new human life. That is the natural order of things.
Further, on another level, in an objective, ontological matter in the natural order of things, man and woman are complementary of each other in other ways such that they are made for loving relationship in a manner that is objectively different from relations between the same sexes.
I Callahan: "That's correct. That's church law that has existed for over 2000 years, so this really isn't news."
Its possibly "news" to her.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
Yep, you read it correctly. What's more, each sexual act between those opposeite-sex married partners must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life" (Humanae vitae, para. 11)--i.e., not be contracepted.
Seamus, thank goodness for internet search engines and Wikipedia!
"Actually, the Bible is pretty tolerant of the marriage of one man with two or more women"
How is that? It isn't what people are told to do from the beginning and is always fraught with conflict and unhappiness.
It's actually a pretty common practice among primitive societies. It ends up being the best solution to the problem of what to do with the wives and children of men killed while hunting or in war.
Freeman Hunt said...
"Did anyone think the Vatican would say something different?"
In this day and age? Seriously?
Freeman Hunt: "Did anyone think the Vatican would say something different?"
The New Soviet Party members were hoping their marxist/identity politics/wokeness campaign had penetrated further into Catholic doctrine in order to rot that institution from the inside out, just like all the other institutions which gave rise to Western Civilization.
This may be Catholic doctrine but is not based on Scripture.
If the Catholic Church based its moral teaching exclusively on Scripture, it would be unable to condemn slavery (as the Second Vatican Council did).
Christianity refines the clutter of the Old, builds upon it, Jesus redeems the sin that Adam wrought, this pontiff has shown a blithe ignorance of the contents of either volume,
What?? You mean the Bible hasn't been canceled yet?? I guess they're waiting until after they lock down the Internet completely.
Notice that the Catholic teaching is grounded NOT in religion or scripture at all. It merely follows the objective natural order. The Church takes a look at the human person, sees the truth of man and woman -- FOLLOWS THE SCIENCE -- and has concluded that man is man, woman is woman, and man is made specifically for and complementary of woman.
All that stuff in the first chapters of Genesis is simply explanation of this natural law, it is not an expounding of it.
Eliminate the Catholic Church and her teachings entirely, if the Church never existed, the truth of the matter would remain -- same-sex relations are objectively disordered.
It is the same with the Church's pro-life stance.
The Catholic Church did NOT invent the idea that a distinct human life begins at conception. Nature and science tell us that. The Church simply recognizes that truth -- even if the rest of the world prefers to live a lie.
"Actually, the Bible is pretty tolerant of the marriage of one man with two or more women"
It's clear, however, that post-exilic Judaism forbade polygamy. I really don't know how rabbinic Judaism explains its ban of polygamy, considering that all the Patriarchs practiced it. I'd like to find an explanation.
I know that the practice of polygamy by the Patriarchs caused St. Thomas Aquinas a bit of heartburn to explain away in the Summa T., too.
It is precisely because these matters of human sexuality and human life are based in objective TRUTH that the Church CANNOT EVER change her teachings on them.
Objective truth. Not religious truth, not revealed truth, but truth as truth as can be observed by all and further discerned by right reason.
You know, natural law used to be a thing understood by all.
Pope still Catholic, film at 11.
Seamus said...Onan was not chastised for masturbation but for refusing to impregnate his dead brother's widow.
Was Hunter Biden an onanist?
The Church’s mission is to proclaim capital T truth, « in season, and out of season », whether convenient or not— capital T truth meaning true for all peoples throughout the ages. In the order of creation, human sexuality is ordered to the transmission of human life. The great unifying principle of the universe is that living things tend toward regeneration. What is required for transmission of human life is sexual union of male and female. Because humanity is given a share in God’s creative power in this way, marriage is elevated to the level of sacrament to secure justice for the child, who has an intrinsic right to be raised by the male and female who created him.
People may choose to live conduct their domestic affairs however they like, but this is the meaning and purpose of marriage. Our bodies, as male and female, are equipped for this purpose. Modern man has forgotten who he is. The church proposes to remind us, and her teaching on the meaning and purpose of masculine/féminine is a beautiful, winsome truth for those who may want to step off the sexual roller coaster.
Did anyone think the Vatican would say something different?
Nowadays, you can't be sure.
As I read this, the church would bless a same sex marriage as long as the partners in that marriage did not have sex.
No, the Church would not "bless" a same-sex marriage of any kind, because the Church doesn't recognize it as marriage. Pope Francis seems, however, to be OK with civil laws giving same-sex couples some or all of the legal benefits of marriage (e.g., joint tax returns, inheritance without needing to write a will, tenancy by the entirety), but that doesn't mean he's OK with people in such a "civil union" engaging in sexual acts with one another.
(In fact, it we're going to gay couples the right either to marry or to form "civil unions," it seems unfair to deny the same legal benefits to other couples who clearly aren't sexual partners--a pair of sisters, for example.)
Similarly, the Church permits married couples to divorce for the sake of such legal consequences as not being responsible for a spouse's debts and being able to file a federal income tax as "single", but not for the purpose of contracting a new marriage. (Of course, a lot of Catholics divorce for the purpose of doing exactly that, but the Church pretends that's not what's going on.)
And, no, even a chaste same-sex union cannot be given a sign of approval as "unions" (even if they are recognized as practical realities) since although it permissible, proper and even encouraged for a man to love a man, such love necessarily needs to be in the manner proper to man and man, and NOT in the manner proper to man and woman. For example, a man loving his father or son or brother or friend who has been raised to the level of brother. Such approval would be to give approval to an objective untruth.
Rather, recognizing the practical reality of same-sex unions, the Church seeks to minister to such persons in the exact same way it seeks to minister to everyone else -- to guide them toward truth in love.
The Catholics (and many Protestants) completely misread the sin of Onan. The sin was disobedience, not masturbation (and it was more coitus interruptus than masturbation anyway). And the "open to the transmission of life" is not biblical at all, but a Papal decree from 192? or therabouts I think, which means it is open to redoing, but since it was pronounced, whadda you call it ex cathedra or something, means it is supposed to be infallible, which makes Popes reluctant to revisit it. And the no divorce rule is iffy at best, Jesus seems to recognize divorce and remarriage when speaking to the woman at the well, so there seems to be wiggle room at least. But gay marriage is the same sin as the husband and wife who enjoy a nice 69 occasionally, and have no intention of stopping. So I pretty much sit this one out. And I can sit it out, since I am not the judge. God will take care of that in due time, and I am sure glad it falls on him, because I do not want the job.
The tenets of organized religion provide some evidence for the non-existence of God.
Only 2 infallible Papal pronouncements: The Mother of God's Immaculate Conception at her outset, and her Assumption at the other end. How many non-Catholics accept these? That's why they have to be decreed infallible.
Wow, I didn't expect that from a Vatican lead by this Pope. It seems clear to me that the Vatican is not accepting a change in what it considers a religious sacrament called marriage. This is why I opposed the US Government trying to redefine a religious ceremony and supported Civil Unions as something the Government can and should do. I personally think the SCOTUS not only was wrong in their ruling, but ruled exactly against the protections meant to prevent the formation of a national religion. Alas, since the decision, we now have more and more regulations defining how religious activities can be performed and when.
Catholics in America pick and choose what Church rules and teachings they want to follow. That's part of the reason many Catholics justified voting for Biden.
My devoutly Catholic (and Democrat) cousins call it "cafeteria Catholicism".
Harvey Milk and Jim Jones's connection had more to do with the corruption of politics (SF leftists and the Democrat establishment) and the manipulation of their narrative, than being a factor in gay relationships. The corruption of truth and denial of facts by powerful poltical forces is something we witness daily and was touched on the other day regarding the glorification of George Floyd by the media and BLM activists and the Democratic Party, and in the accusations of racism against professors at Georgetown Law School, for examples. I didn't know anything about Milk and Jones and SF politics but apparently things were much the same back then in terms of how the truth is fictionalized for mass consumption. I just didn't know the details.
Jim Jones & Harvey Milk: The Secret History
Thanks, Tim. Some Catholics seem to forget that Christ, not the pope, is the head of the Church. And the Apostle Paul is clear about the importance of sex in marriage not just as a procreation opportunity. [I Corinth. 7]. After menopause, are couples supposed to stop having sex? Ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the notion that Joseph and Mary never had sex [and other children!] after Jesus was born.
Big win for you people. Congratulations.
The Church is not anti-sex at all. Quite the contrary. But it does rightly recognize, unlike the present sex-obsessed culture, that sex is not the be all and end all, that there are other things that are important too.
The Church is actually quite sex affirmative, but like all things, in their proper perspective, including the person being in control of their passions, rather than their passions controlling them.
With respect to Humanae Vitae, the teaching that touches on birth control, a LOT of people wrongly believe that it is primarily about birth control. In fact, IT IS NOT. What Humanae Vitae and all of Catholic teaching on human sexuality is about is LOVE. What the Church proclaims is that sex should be done in the context of love. Period. Love -- a complete gift of self to the other. A giving of self in love, not a using of the other for one's own pleasures. A complete gift of self, including one's fertility, rather than imposing a barrier between man and woman, either physical or chemical. A love that is open to life.
Meanwhile, the Church also listens to Jesus. Listens to Him when He speaks of heaven and, thus, our own ultimate intended end. A heaven, He says, where we are "married" to God, not to one another, where, Jesus says, there will be no more human marriage. In other words, NO SEX. In fact, no need to have sex, either for reasons of procreation or for reasons of pleasure. Joseph and Mary, in their own chaste and virginal marriage, are a forerunner of this heavenly state.
Leland, if the law does not limit a divorcee to a civil union, to avoid bigamy in the eyes of the Church, why limit anyone to a civil union?
@mockturtle- Catholics do not believe that sex within marriage has only a procreative purpose. It is both procreative and unitive, and the second part of that is why sex is not at all forbidden after menopause.
If Humanae Vitae is about love, not birth control, it was poorly drafted. I guess that happens when you commission an eminent group to examine an important issue and then publish something rejecting its main conclusion.
Pope Benedict put it quite well when he said:
Christianity, Catholicism, is not a collection of prohibitions: it is a positive option. It is very important that we look at it again because this idea has almost completely disappeared today. We have heard so much about what is not allowed that now it is time to say: we have a positive idea to offer, that man and woman are made for each other, that the scale of sexuality, eros, agape, indicates the level of love and it is in this way that marriage develops, first of all as a joyful and blessing-filled encounter between a man and a woman, and then, the family, which guarantees continuity among generations and through which generations are reconciled to each other and even cultures can meet.
So, firstly, it is important to stress what we want. Secondly, we can also see why we do not want some things. I believe we need to see and reflect on the fact that it is not a Catholic invention that man and woman are made for each other so that humanity can go on living: all cultures know this. . . The human person must always be respected as a human person. But all this is clearer if you say it first in a positive way.
http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060805_intervista.html
If the Church was anti-sex I think its recent litigation history would look different.
Actually, again, it is LOVE that is called to be both "procreative and unitive," in a special way in marriage, but also in relationships aside from marriage. It is the fullness of love itself which is, by its very nature, fruitful and unitive.
The fullness of love impels us to communion with the other, which is more than just union, rather, it is two becoming one. The fullness of love is also, by its very nature, dynamic and fruitful. Love does not just sit there, it bursts out from itself and produces new life -- not only biological new life, but spiritual and emotional and social new life. It is this fullness of love, precisely because love is so powerfully fruitful and procreative, that created the universe. It is this love that defeats even death and brings new life.
"Procreative and unitive" is all about LOVE. Humanae Vitae simply applies that aspect to marital sexual relations.
Dave Begley said:Catholics in America pick and choose what Church rules and teachings they want to follow.
Bingo. With a cherry on top. Cafeteria Catholics.
Almost all American Catholics Catholics choose at the cafeteria. Dining under the last several papacies reveals that.
To be sure, the SCANDAL of our time has been the complete failure of so many people in positions of authority to rightly and properly teach what the Church actually says about human sexuality.
But here is what Pope Paul VI himself had to say about his encyclical Humanae Vitae,
"It is not merely the declaration of a negative moral law that excludes every action aimed at rendering procreation impossible (n. 14), but it is above all the positive presentation of conjugal morality concerning its mission of love and fecundity "in the light of an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation (that vocation being "to love.") . . .
"We sought to interpret the Divine law that flows from the very nature of genuine human love, from the essential structure of married life, from the personal dignity of husband and wife, from their mission of service to life, as well as from the sanctity of Christian marriage. . .
"We hoped that Christian husbands and wives would understand that Our decision, however severe and arduous it may seem, is the interpreter of the genuineness of their love, called to be transformed by the imitation of the love of Christ for his mystical spouse, the Church."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=718
Just as ridiculous as the notion that Joseph and Mary never had sex [and other children!] after Jesus was born.
The tabernacle is not a bread box, mockturtle.
Here is the text of Humanae Vitae, in which Pope Paul VI repeatedly explains that what he is talking about is love and the fullness of love and wanting human sexuality to be expressed within the context of love.
9. In the light of these facts the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly.
This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Although this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
Finally, this love is fruitful. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." . . .
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
But, back to your point -- yes, the teaching of Humanae Vitae could have been more clearly written. And, in fact, Pope John Paul II did just that. It was at the center of his pontificate.
“Christianity is new testament.”
As to polygamy, I think that it could be argued that only Bishops and Deacons need to restrict themselves to one wife (1 Timothy 3:1-13), based on the legal theory that calling out exceptions means that the non exceptions (those who are neither Bishops nor Deacons) are allowed to have more than one wife. Of course, you run into the problem here that Paul could be read here requiring that Bishops and Deacons have one, and only one, wife, while the RC church requires that their Bishops, and the remainder of the priesthood from which they are selected, not to be married to a woman (or presumably to a man either). Of course, different translations result in different interpretations (just as RC translations of the Old Testament have effectively written idolatry out of their version of the Ten Commandments)...
Doth not nature itself teach you that ....
Their club, their rules.
Narr
Simple, really
I'm always amazed at how many non-Catholics feel comfortable pronouncing on Catholic doctrine while showing no understanding of even what it is, much less its justification. (See mockturtle above "After menopause, are couples supposed to stop having sex? Ridiculous." I agree. Ridiculous. Also not close to what the Church teaches.)
Regard our hostesses comment "If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners" I think she misses a subtle point as well. The Church teaches that sex, as in actual penis-in-vagina intercourse, is licit only between married couples, it is a better reading of their teachings that other kinds of sexual activity aren't sex at all, but instead an unnatural let's-get-as-close-as-we-can-with-the-parts-we-have attempt to simulate actual sex.
This is akin to the Church's teaching on gay marriage. They aren't against it. They hold that it is impossible.
I can't think of anything the Bible is more clear and consistent about except idolatry, Old and New Testament, and the Bible links homosexuality to idolatry. I am baffled that one can claim to be Christian and ignore this inconvenient truth.
Catholics in America pick and choose what Church rules and teachings they want to follow.
Principles are instructive, not determinative, and are in competition with secular interests, motives, and incentives.
Rather, recognizing the practical reality of same-sex unions
Tolerance, first.
the Church seeks to minister to such persons in the exact same way it seeks to minister to everyone else -- to guide them toward truth in love.
Normalization, always.
Big win for you people. Congratulations.
We can all sleep more soundly knowing that guy is off the streets.
News Report:
In a surprise move, the Catholic Church refused to junk 2000 years of Christian Doctrine regarding Gay Marriage. Atheist's and Non-Catholics expressed shock and dismay. "While I despise their silly worship of a non-existent spaghettis monster, I had expected them to agree with my analysis of the bible" said a prominent New Atheist. Various Jews and Protestants leaders expressed bewilderment over the Catholic Churches failure to follow their freely given advice on the matter. "I've sent the Pope at least 100 letters on the matter, setting him straight" Said Reform Rabbi and Gay Rights advocate Josh Goldstein, "Yet, he persists in getting it wrong. Its very troubling".
Developing...
But back to the original issue of same-sex relations and the objective order.
Let's suppose that a group of people traveled to a land, an island if you will, and everyone was gay or lesbian. That is, they only engaged in sex with others of the same sex. They loved, they laughed, they cared for one another and were always nice and charming.
Now, 100 years later, an explorer traveled to this land to see just how well this wonderful community has prospered.
And what did he find? The place was empty. There was no one left. They were all dead. No, they didn't kill each other, they just died naturally of old age or illness or injury. But they were all gone.
Why? BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT PROCREATE. They could not perpetuate themselves. Because the natural order demands opposite sex relations in order to survive.
Now, these were great and loving and wonderful people. But their "order" was also the order of extinction.
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
That would be a correct statement of Catholic doctrine
h said...
As I read this, the church would bless a same sex marriage as long as the partners in that marriage did not have sex. They might get married, for example, for tax reasons, and they might live at the same address without ever having sex.
That's not a marriage, that's a tax dodge.
There's no reason for the Catholic Church to bless your tax dodge
Muslims don't bless same sex marriages either. But the Left typically skips over that part because they like Muslims.
Mark @3:10: The Shakers didn't last very long, either. ;-)
Muslims don't bless same sex marriages either. But the Left typically skips over that part because they like Muslims.
Again, the Catholic response to people in a same-sex relationship is to love them, which means to NOT affirm the relationship, but to affirm the person.
The Muslim response is . . . well, it's not very pleasant.
But like you say, the left skips over that.
If the Church was anti-sex I think its recent litigation history would look different.
Yeah, they did tolerate socially liberal, notably trans/homosexual male, infiltration of their ranks, and their ostensibly "secular" antagonists forced a cover-up and sustained their progress. A case of aborting the baby, cannibalizing her profitable parts, sequestering her carbon pollutants, and having her, too, but they are Pro-Choice, so their lives don't matter. The Church should have, and many did, stand, but under threat of law and cancel culture (e.g. trial by press, legal activism, squelched speech) took a a knee (h/t Marines). Boy Scouts, Hollywood, too.
"Procreative and unitive" is all about LOVE
A reconciliation of Natural and moral imperatives.
Blogger Narr said...
Their club, their rules.
Narr
Simple, really
3/15/21, 2:59 PM
Not if the government has it's way. Governments are already restricting Catholic charities that do not facilitate gay adoptions. See the Little Sisters of the Poor and their issues with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that required them to pay for contraceptives. Expect pressure by the usual parties to have tax exemptions removed for any church that does not bless gay marriages.
Leland, if the law does not limit a divorcee to a civil union, to avoid bigamy in the eyes of the Church, why limit anyone to a civil union?
What does divorce have to do with a civil union?
As for how the Catholic Church opinion of bigamy, whose and what laws are you referencing?
Besides you, who mentioned limits on civil unions?
You question reads like nonsense of words put together without understanding of what those words mean in any context I provided.
"If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners."
If you change this to:
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God as understood by the Catholic Church" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
Then it all makes sense and is perfectly understandable.
Governments are already restricting Catholic charities
This applies to non-Catholic Christian adoption agencies, as well, who do not adopt children to homosexual couples or singles.
If you change this to:
If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God as understood by the Catholic Church" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.
Then it all makes sense and is perfectly understandable.
If you change it to that then it completely destroys the proper sense and makes it totally misunderstood.
Again, if the Church did not exist, if Christianity did not exist -- if GOD did not exist -- still same-sex relations would be contrary to the objective order.
It is a matter of the natural law. Religion only enters into it to further reveal what it means to be human and humanity's relationship with God, as well as to endow that natural order of man and women with God's grace in the sacrament of matrimony.
On the question of polygamy--I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise popularly referred to as the "Mormons" so we have a bit more recent history with the subject.
Contrary to popular belief, polygamy is not allowed in our faith, and in fact to join the church you cannot be in a polygamous relationship (it comes up with missionary work in some spots in Africa). It's also true that it was legal in the 1800s.
So when is it legal and authorized, and when is it a sin? Our faith says that the default is one man, one woman marriage. When God commands it, He will then authorize polygamy for a short period of time. Usually such periods of time are when there are few faithful on the earth. The stated purpose is to raise up righteous children unto the Lord, in much larger numbers than a traditional one man/one woman relationship can provide. Consider Jacob/Israel: how many righteous families were around? Not many--why else was his wife brought in from far away? And he ended up with 4. Had 12 sons and at least one daughter.
Divine Authorization for polygamy ended, it appears, after the Babylonian captivity. For a time, our church practiced it. We don't anymore; authorization has been revoked. Heck, nowadays it's hard enough to get one man and one woman to marry, let alone one man, many women.
In this day and age, merely holding to the traditional view of marriage is radical enough, and is rapidly going to lead to persecution. Kudos to the Catholics for not doing the surrender act.
Look -- it is all very simple.
The Church does NOT pronounce opinions or policies or views.
It recognizes TRUTH. The Church does not invent that truth, it does not present opinion as truth. It merely recognizes and discerns through observation, experience and right reason what the truth is as pertains to temporal matters, and as pertains to spiritual matters add in also Divine Revelation to the mix.
One thing I'm sure of when it comes to the RCC is that they will hold their own--in a sense they're like this country, more likely to tear itself apart than lose to another outfit.
Narr
Will this cause trouble for the D's?
Althouse said: "If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners. "
Yes, you are reading that correctly. Catholic doctrine on this is simple: everyone who is not in a sanctioned marriage is called upon to be chaste. The Church does not sanction SS marriage.
Importantly, a person who possesses a same-sex orientation is NOT considered to be a sinner simply because they feel that way. Such people are just expected to be chaste, the same as all others not in a sanctioned marriage.
Vance wrote:Kudos to the Catholics for not doing the surrender act.
And mockturtle wrote: Governments are already restricting Catholic charities
This applies to non-Catholic Christian adoption agencies, as well, who do not adopt children to homosexual couples or singles.
I’m juxtaposing those comments because although mockturtle’s statement is correct, it’s also true that one of the largest of the non-Catholic Christian adoption agencies, Bethany, recently caved to the pressure. Does anyone believe that the others won’t follow?
Sometimes the reason for the Magisterium is pretty clear.
"If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners."
Holy crap... is this news to you?
CStanely reports: I’m juxtaposing those comments because although mockturtle’s statement is correct, it’s also true that one of the largest of the non-Catholic Christian adoption agencies, Bethany, recently caved to the pressure. Does anyone believe that the others won’t follow?
We shall see. The Bible warns about a great apostasy. Christians should avoid apostate churches. There will be a reckoning. And if this means churches must forgo tax exempt status, then so be it. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's but hold firm to God's Word. We are living in a time of utter insanity right now.
A local Bible church gives the following definition of marriage and sexual relationships:
"We believe that Biblical marriage consists solely of a monogamous, heterosexual covenant between one man and one woman. It should reflect the biblical model of Christ’s relationship with His church, and is the only legitimate context for a sexual relationship."
Pretty straightforward, I'd say. There really is NO ambiguity about it and any church that says otherwise is apostate.
First sentence: "The Vatican said Monday that the Catholic Church would not bless same-sex unions, in a combative statement approved by Pope Francis that threatens to widen the chasm between the church and much of the LGBTQ community."
I guess the AP has given up on being objective.
“If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners.”
Yes and according to St. Paul, even better is to control yourself and remain chaste and celibate.
@Matt- that is an incredible statement, isn’t it? The Church stands firm where she’s been for millennia and she is being combative and widening the chasm.
As a theologically liberal Lutheran, I find the Catholic Church to be a very weird institution.
Perhaps that is my bias, but my wife (who grew up Catholic) is far more negative about the various rules of the Church. It probably didn't help that she worked for a Catholic university for 25 years where she could see the money grubbing corruption and hypocrisy first hand.
I mean no disrespect for the practicing Catholics on this site.
@Francisco- I’d be worried about any practicing Catholics who weren’t similarly bothered by the money grubbing and corruption.
As for how the Catholic Church opinion of bigamy, whose and what laws are you referencing?
Ugh, so many edits just trying to respond to readers nonsense question... Either strike the "how" and make church possessive of the opinion or change out "opinion" for "views" since the questioned mentioned something about "eyes". "The Eyes of the Church are Upon You" sounds every bit as like hell as the "Eyes of Texas". I still have no idea why bigamy came up.
When I read the article at CNN I realized that Ann has buried the lede. This latest statement by the Vatican is an attempt to clean up a mess made by Pope Francis some time ago where he was quoted as stating a preference for civil unions for gays. Not only was this idea opposed to church doctrine but also his statement challenges the belief that the Pope is infallible. Hopefully people don't remember what the Pope said before or accept that it doesn't matter because he wasn't talking about Church doctrine.
Pope endorses civil union laws for same-sex couples
By Delia Gallagher and Nicole Chavez, CNN
Updated 2:45 AM ET, Thu October 22, 2020
"As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis advocated for same-sex civil unions as an alternative when Argentina was discussing whether to legalize same-sex marriage.
...
Ed Mechmann, director of public policy for the Archidiocese of New York, described the Pope's comments as a serious mistake that can lead to a lot of confusion.
'In this case, I think we have to recognize that the Holy Father has plainly erred,' Mechmann wrote in a blog post. 'Catholics cannot promote the legalization of same-sex unions. But we also have to be clear that he isn't changing the teaching of the Church on homosexuality or same-sex unions in any way.' "
Followed by: Vatican says Pope's comments on same-sex civil unions were taken out of context
By Delia Gallagher, CNN
Updated 4:46 AM ET, Tue November 3, 2020
Regarding the pope's comments in the film that "what we need is a civil union law," the Vatican's clarification says that the Pope was speaking about his opposition to a same-sex marriage law in Argentina ten years ago when the Pope was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. In that context, the Vatican's letter claims, the Pope "had spoken about the rights of these people to have certain legal protection," but not about same-sex marriage.
"It is clear that Pope Francis was referring to certain provisions made by states, and certainly not to the doctrine of the Church, which he has reaffirmed numerous times over the years," the letter explains.
I think there has been some progress by some religious leaders to include LGBTQ people in their communities, to show compassion and welcoming to those who have been rejected in the past from having a spiritual life and community.
There are a lot of things I like about the Catholic Church but their attitudes towards sex are conflicted and inhuman imo. Every person I have ever met who had severe hangups about sex was brought up Catholic. No exception. Every gay person I have ever met who has extremely negative and hostile feelings towards religion and God was brought up Catholic. At the same time the church has a history of rampant sexual abuse of children (and nuns) by "celibate" clergy. All a coincidence?
“ is our Professor SURPRISED TO LEARN, that fornication outside of lawful marriage is a Sin?
Sometimes, i wonder if people have EVER read the bible? ”
Not surprised.
I’ve read the gospels hundreds of times.
Topic has been covered on multiple occasions on this blog.
My motivation to write the sentence the way I did was to state clearly that the problem is not gay sex but all sex that doesn’t fit the narrow framework and fornication is considered just as bad.
Also, the phrase ”objectively ordered “ interested me.
Yes and according to St. Paul, even better is to control yourself and remain chaste and celibate.
For those who, like Paul, are asexual, that works fine.
Paul expected the second coming in his lifetime.
The current pope is a dumpster fire. The only people I know who speak favorably of him are non-Catholic liberals.
Readering observes: Paul expected the second coming in his lifetime.
But did he expect the Spanish Inquisition?
I’m not surprised that Althouse was not surprised.
I don’t think it’s correct to say though that “fornication is considered just as bad.” Both are disordered but that doesn’t mean that some transgressions aren’t worse than others. Think of it in terms of modern sexual morality- lack of consent is always bad but violent rape and pedophilia are worse.
In the OT there are passages that characterize homosexual acts as worse than fornication. Less evidence of that in the NT but my understanding of the Catholic teaching (based on Scripture and natural law) is that homosexual acts represent a stronger rebellion and are complicated by scandal. That’s why a marriage between two people who know that they are sterile or who are past child bearing years is still licit- it doesn’t present the same scandal to the community.
But the other point I wanted to make is that we are all a disordered people! The inability to form harmonious male-female relationships is a consequence of original sin. God gave us free will and we chose to rebel, so as a result our relationships are disordered. His grace allows us to try to approach the ideal, when we use our free will to cooperate with His grace, we have greater success.
"My motivation to write the sentence the way I did was to state clearly that the problem is not gay sex but all sex that doesn’t fit the narrow framework and fornication is considered just as bad." -- AA
Homosexuality is a special case; did you miss this?
Romans 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The Christian standard is that sex belongs in marriage between a man and a woman. To quibble about whether or not homosexual sex is more sinful than adultery or fornication is splitting doctrinal hairs and missing the point, IMO. Because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", it is incumbent on us to confess sins and repent of them. In other words, by the grace of God through Christ, to see sin as rebellion and do our best to avoid it. His rules are for our benefit, not to make us miserable but to keep us from the misery that slavery to sin inevitably brings.
Think of the Roman Catholic Church as a club with rules.
If you break the rules you are no longer a member in good standing.
But there are ways to reinstate your membership.
And if you keep breaking the rules, you are out.
Or you can go and find another club.
Homosexuality is a special case; did you miss this?
Sodomy is a primary mode for fecal transmission. In addition to rape-rape through superior force, back... black hole.... whore h/t NAACP, was used to force men and women, boys and girls, to take a knee in subservient consensus. It was a forward-looking, trans-social behavior, not limited to transgender couplets.
mockturtle said...For those who, like Paul, are asexual, that works fine.
I have serious doubts about the supposed asexuality of Catholic priests. For example, it is a wonder that some diocese's employee health insurance pays for Viagra, according to my wife. No other insurance that I am aware of pays for those medications.
What percentage of priests are sexually active?
What percentage of priests are homosexual in their sexual activity? I have heard of surveys that suggest that number may be as high as 90%. That seems to be a dilemma for the Catholic hierarchy.
Again, I mean no disrespect for practicing Catholics, but there seems to be something rotten at the core of the Church.
Francisco D, I've often wondered whether perverts become priests or forced celibacy fosters perversion. Either way, it's been going on a long, long time. The 16th century French satirist, Rabelais, makes reference to the depravity of monks. [He was a former monk, himself]. John Calvin, reformer [and Satan personified to Catholics], a former priest, discussed this issues in his Institutes. My daughter attended a Catholic school in the Seattle area for three years. During that time, two priests from the affiliated church were 'relocated' for molestation of boys. That was in the early 1980's.
Makes you wonder about Boy's Town, doesn't it?
It's binary. Mortal sin an out. No mortal sin and eventually in. So sin, but repent frequently. And it just seems like most of the mortal sins relate to just one of the 7 deadly sins. So, frequently.
the other point I wanted to make is that we are all a disordered people!
That's right, so the people who experience same-sex attraction and the gender confused really need to lighten up and stop thinking that they are singled out here. None of us are perfect.
But there is a difference in confessing yourself to be imperfect and sometimes straying from the good, and in proclaiming that what is false is true and that our disorders are virtues.
But there is a difference in confessing yourself to be imperfect and sometimes straying from the good, and in proclaiming that what is false is true and that our disorders are virtues.
Well said, Mark.
There’s the “unrevealed plans of God” loophole. Sure, you can’t get a blessing for your union from the Catholic Church. But as long as you are living in accordance with God’s unrevealed plans for you, you’re good with God.
Here’s the funny part:
“The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of this Congregation, was informed and gave his assent to the publication of the above-mentioned Responsum ad dubium, with the annexed Explanatory Note. ... Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 22nd of February 2021, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle.“
There is a chair, said to date from 875 AD, but it has not been publicly displayed since 1867. It is taken out for occasional study but otherwise remains closeted away in its reliquary.
If it makes anyone feel better, anything less than perfect Christian love between spouses renders the marriage "disordered" (the word sounds like an insult, and it sort of is, but it is best thought of as the simple observation that almost nobody is as kind or as loving as they should be).
To be fair, this is the internet and I don't expect to be believed, but I have seen that ideal (perfect Christian love between spouses) almost achieved in real life, but not often, and usually only on the first couple of days of the marriage, or when one or the other spouse was in the last days of life. To be honest, though .... (citation omitted) at a much less than a one in a hundred ratio (citation omitted). Again this is the internet, and I don't expect to be believed, but GOD LOVES US ALL even the disordered people.
Don't take this personally, but, assuming you (who are reading this) have never had the desire to fall in love with someone with whom you cannot have a baby because of the whole male genitalia/male genitalia or female genitalia/female genitalia problem from the point of view of fertility, and even assuming you are generally correct in thinking of yourself a wonderful person and a wonderful spouse (if you think that, or give the appearance of thinking that... you are not the only one, there are LOTS of commenters here, I am not the only one, who often come across as way too full of themselves):
don't take this personally, but no matter how proud you are of your marriage, of your family, of your good works, you are probably disordered in some way, and the worst of it is, there is a good chance that you don't care.
Don't take this personally but few listen to those who talk down to them.
Thanks Mark. The joy and optimism of Catholicism are so rarely recognized.
I didn’t think AA misunderstood “objectively ordered.” I’m a quotidian thinker, but I am guessing it is a reference to Natural Law, and surely she knows the theory of Natural Law.
fornication is considered just as bad.
Actually, no it isn't. St. Thomas Aquinas considered the question, "Whether the unnatural vice [i.e., masturbation, bestiality, sodomy, or "not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation" (I think he's referring to contracepted intercourse, or to heterosexual oral or snal intercourse) acts] is the greatest sin among the species of lust?" He says the answer is yes. Along the way, he specifically finds fornication to be the least of the sexual sins: "[S]imple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust . . . ." https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article12
"(I think he's referring to contracepted intercourse, or to heterosexual oral or snal intercourse) acts] is the greatest sin among the species of lust?" He says the answer is yes. Along the way, he specifically finds fornication to be the least of the sexual sins: "[S]imple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust . . . ."
Well, I'll confess to having been tempted by lust a time or two during my brief carnal life. But there are some activities on which I would not need to consult a higher authority for moral guidance and even I would draw a bright no-go line at having intercourse with snails.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा