Tell us about the clarity of the teaching on divorce?

ETA: Here is what is going on (LINK)

Did angels have sex with women? I think I recall you understanding that they did. I hope you now understand that this is impossible.

I don't disagree with the current teaching at all.

What I hear from you and others is that this teaching is static. It may be, I have said as much that I do not know - but I am seeing and listening and looking to our Church for guidance.

ps: Jrico, don't take my questions about aspects of our shared faith for a revolution. Far from it.

Jrico - bearing false witness is a mortal sin.

PabloSerna said:

---

Did angels have sex with women? I think I recall you understanding that they did. I hope you now understand that this is impossible.

---

Non sequitur, and ignorant besides. The nephilim in the ANE were thought to have three parents. I'll let you chew on that one for a bit.

You didn't answer the question.

If there is no marriage in heaven - there is no sex in heaven.

So why is it relevant to speak about marriage in the resurrection in a conversation about sex here and now?

Right - I'm not talking about marriage.

I was responding to a question about the purpose of marriage and that I was advocating for changing it to accommodate homosexuality. They never responded.

So two things:

1. I am making a distinction between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a loving, committed, free relationship (not a union) between two people of the same sex. I continue to state as clearly as I can that one is "par excellence" and the other has an aspect of God's love. Clearly, marital love and sex (act) between married persons has two in-separable dimensions (procreative and unitive). Gay and lesbian persons only have one aspect. Further I see and recognize their love - which is a reflection of God at some level. So, therefore, I am looking for the Church to address this reality. This is where we are now with the Synod.

2. The second point is about the sex act between LGBTQ persons. It would seem that we approach this from our (straight) perspective and impose a moral aspect about it that goes beyond what they can achieve - namely to procreate. While it is proper in the context of opposite sex persons because of the possibility of new life - it is clearly not possible between persons of the same biological sex. Therefore we summarily dismiss the unitive component that can be a source of love. In Germany, they have raised similar questions and have said more.

What I am seeing here and in my local Church is a reluctance to discuss and care for LGBTQ persons who wish to be a part of the family. I don't see Jesus acting along that thinking - rather I see his love and mercy meeting us where we are and guiding us back home. So that gives me hope and I am grateful that this is even being discussed by the Church ahead of the 2023 Synod of Bishops.


ETA: What I mean by "par excellence" - is that this was what God intended from the beginning. What we have now is after the fall.

Quote:

---

It would seem that we approach this from our (straight) perspective and impose a moral aspect about it

---

Certainly true for all manner of Protestantism. Who has held the line - BECAUSE OF WHAT THE SACRAMENTS INHERENTLY ARE? Meaning, a statement of spiritual reality, for 2,000 years? The Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox). No one else.

You simply can't have this mindset and claim Catholicism. Again, the faith makes such truth claims of sexuality based upon deep spiritual realities, philosophically and most crucially nuptial / Sacramental.

Now, plenty of bishops, including Francis, likely have this mindset. Alas - we've had many problematic ones since St. Peter denied Christ, when we first had a Church and an anti-Church in the same space.

Reality will win, after much damage.

I'm not following that 100%, however, you reminded me of a question I asked:

Why are some children born with disabilities and deformed? Did not God form us in out mother's womb?

It would seem that the fall had an effect on man in a physical way and not just a spiritual way - it was explained to me. So, if this is part of our reality, say a predisposition to drugs for instance - then it is a part of our salvation.

If the devil operates in the imagination, and the worst thing we can do is what the prodigal son's brother did to him - accuse him of blowing his father's money on harlots and whatnot - then we are no different. That is why I say we are approaching homosexuality from a heterosexuals' frame of mind. Maybe it would make more sense to understand this in light of their spiritual walk to God?

So to follow your logic, they cannot enter into a loving, committed, free relationship with a person of the same sex?

Does "loving" mean eros? (physical, sensual intimacy)

Or is the relationships of a good monastery, where the brotherhood is Christ-centric?

The physical matters, because in Sacrament it is a conduit of grace. Therefore, as body is Temple post-70, all homosexual physical acts, and all non-marital heterosexual activities, are not to be a pollutant of God's residence.

This approach is what the Courage apostolate is all about (LINK). It is a path for all vocations.

So that is one way.

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore,
the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (CC, #54)

PabloSerna said:

---

I was responding to a question about the purpose of marriage and that I was advocating for changing it to accommodate homosexuality. They never responded.

So two things:

1. I am making a distinction between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a loving, committed, free relationship (not a union) between two people of the same sex. I continue to state as clearly as I can that one is "par excellence" and the other has an aspect of God's love. Clearly, marital love and sex (act) between married persons has two in-separable dimensions (procreative and unitive). Gay and lesbian persons only have one aspect. Further I see and recognize their love - which is a reflection of God at some level. So, therefore, I am looking for the Church to address this reality. This is where we are now with the Synod.

2. The second point is about the sex act between LGBTQ persons. It would seem that we approach this from our (straight) perspective and impose a moral aspect about it that goes beyond what they can achieve - namely to procreate. While it is proper in the context of opposite sex persons because of the possibility of new life - it is clearly not possible between persons of the same biological sex. Therefore we summarily dismiss the unitive component that can be a source of love. In Germany, they have raised similar questions and have said more.

What I am seeing here and in my local Church is a reluctance to discuss and care for LGBTQ persons who wish to be a part of the family. I don't see Jesus acting along that thinking - rather I see his love and mercy meeting us where we are and guiding us back home. So that gives me hope and I am grateful that this is even being discussed by the Church ahead of the 2023 Synod of Bishops.


ETA: What I mean by "par excellence" - is that this was what God intended from the beginning. What we have now is after the fall.

---

Im often unable to respond because of health issues. My functioning is pretty good at the moment. Hopefully that continues.

Correct me if this is an inaccurate presentation of the argument you're making:

Marriage is a sacrament that is given to us by God and works for heterosexuals. It doesn't work for homosexuals. We need an equivalent "thing" (I want to use the word sacrament but don't know if thats part of your argument) that necessarily is different than marriage but fulfills at least one of the purposes of the marriage sacrament.

As far as the fallen world goes, I bolded it because when science produces knowledge, it does not know if that truth it describes is a truth about the redeemed world or a truth about the corrupt world. I don't look to my field (psychology) to tell me what it means to be human. I look to the Church.

Is sexual activity outside of holy marriage a sin?

I've stayed out of this thread as I don't have much to add/say/opine about these machinations of the RCC, but it is pretty entertaining to learn about. Thx all.

I would say something very similar with some slight adjustments:

Marriage is a sacrament that is given to us by God for (heterosexual) men and women because their union can bring forth life in cooperation with the love of God. Any means to separate the unitive and procreative aspect of marital love is self-directed and will erode this love. Any sexual activity outside of this sacrament by heterosexual persons is sinful. For heterosexual married persons, their holiness in marriage - IS their salvation.

For persons that are homosexual, they cannot enter into the same type of sacramental union, however, they can freely enter into a loving, committed, and chaste relationship that can lead them toward a closer relationship with Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Because their sexual activity cannot bring about new life, this form of affection should be directed toward a deeper understanding of "philio" love.

+++

I don't know if the Church would come around to this, but I do think that the love between LGBTQ persons is reflective of the love of God, but not in the same way as love between a man and a woman.

ETA: "equivalent thing"? No, not at all since they by their nature - are different.
ETA: (heterosexual)

Yes it is. Because it is self-directed.

You are correct that the millennia of church teaching on this is clear and unchanged. The point I have been trying to make is that this teaching is directed toward heterosexual persons.

As far as my "false conclusions" this is not true. I am have not concluded anything. That is why I was warning Jrico to tap the brakes on assuming too much. What I am doing is meeting LGBTQ people in my part of the world and trying to understand. HTH