I step out to do some work and bam!

+++

Z, that's an over simplification of love and the sex act - because it is vital to understanding why I believe there needs to be some level of reflection by the Bishops in light of persons who are biologically different than most of the rest of humanity.

Here's a quote from the late John Paul II, Theology of the Body that says it better:

"Through our bodies, we express the deepest things in our heart. This is why sex, if experienced correctly, is such a wonderful gift! It allows us to say things we would not otherwise be able to say!"

So, going back to Fr. James Martin quote about "Hate the sin, love the sinner" - we are in essence saying to homosexual persons that their way of expressing themselves to each other (in a committed, free, and loving relationship) is sinful. That if they truly love one another they must not express themselves in that way - ever.

Again, from all that I have been reading, this is in the context of heterosexual relationships, where anal sex between a husband and wife is disordered as is the use of contraception, prophylactics, and pulling out. Precisely because those acts seek to separate the procreative aspect from the unitive. In other words, they are lying to each other, because they are withhold an aspect of themselves.

ETA: There's an old Mac Davis song, "Baby, Baby don't get hooked on me - because I'll just use you then set you free.." That is what JP2 is talking about.

File5 said:

---

There's a reason Pablo is the one who posted this thread and none of the rest of us - this Synod ain't looking for our opinion :/

---

You can tap out at any time...

You said a lot.. let's focus on the sex act. As I recall, you are Roman Catholic? If so, you are no doubt familiar with the Theology of the Body by St. John Paul II. This is where I am coming from and it makes a ton of sense.

The collection of speeches sits within oak, about 8 feet away.

Your views on this thread are not at all aligned with them.

Read again what I am saying... let's try it this way:

Homosexual people can fully give themselves in love to their partners - there is no separation because they cannot procreate the way heterosexual people can. Does that make sense?

So, it would seem to me that if we are saying (RCC) that being gay is not sinful - acting on it is - then why? Because it is disordered.

Why?

Quote:

---

we are in essence saying to homosexual persons that their way of expressing themselves to each other (in a committed, free, and loving relationship) is sinful. That if they truly love one another they must not express themselves in that way - ever.

---

Be specific.

Do you refer to Fr. Rose, who took his inclination and created true brotherhood within monasteries?

Or do you refer to sodomy, which is wrong for all inclinations, and has been for 2,000 years according to well-developed teaching?

Why is love between two persons of the same sex, given freely, nothing withholding, and given out of love disordered?

I don't know Fr. Rose, so I would have to read up on him. However, it sounds like he was called into a religious life and not a marital vocation - right?

OK, let's keep this civil - why is sodomy wrong?

I know why it is wrong for heterosexual persons in holy matrimony - so skip that.

He never did, that I am aware of.

Finally, the crux of the matter. There are dozens of Saints of the faith we both claim that have detailed why. You are asking me summarize?
Most important reason, once again - what the Sacraments are.

PabloSerna said:

---

Why is love between two persons of the same sex, given freely, nothing withholding, and given out of love disordered?

---

Because it is an abuse of the sexual faculties, whose telos is the procreation of children.

Got any other questions a well catechized 8th grader could answer?

How many of you have worked on your cars?

I like to tinker with a couple of nice sports cars I am fortunate to have. One is a 1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4. If I want to pop the hood and take the headers off to clean the valves... do I choose from my SAE tools or Metric?

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

OK, let's keep this civil - why is sodomy wrong?

I know why it is wrong for heterosexual persons in holy matrimony - so skip that.

---

Pablo, I read this comment as though you're arguing that those with SSA are different, in essence, from those without SSA... in some sense, a different species or metaphysically distinct. The other Catholics here have already stated that it sinful regardless of SSA.

---

Yes. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but he's trying to make the case that a homosexuals' predisposition is to seek out a same sex partner, and therefore it's a natural proclivity. Whereas a straight man is predisposed to seek out a female partner to beget children. So what is well ordered for heterosexuals is not for homosexuals and vice versa.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

If sodomy between gays isn't wrong because because it can't produce children, then why not condone every other sex act between a heterosexual couple that can't produce children?

This whole conversation is putting the cart before the horse. You're starting with the act of sex and trying to work back up to Godliness instead of starting with Godliness and letting that inform you about sex.

---

To your first point:

From Humane Vitae:

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator."

+++

First off, relax - this is a discussion on a fan board for Texas A&M sports. I am being open about my inner thoughts and faith journey. Put down your torches and shackles, no need to burn me at the stake for questioning established teaching of the Magisterium. My ongoing faith formation as a lay Dominican actually encourages this search for truth.

Now, I have been making the case that much of the condemnation of homosexuality comes down to the physical act (sodomy) since the church has made it clear that "self mastery" is required to live out the universal call to holiness. This follows for all persons regardless of their sexual orientation that are not called into Holy Matrimony.

To me... me only.. it would seem that this teaching is directed toward heterosexual relationships who have the capacity to participate in the will God to bring forth new life. So it would be licit for homosexual persons to live in community - as long as they do not have sex. I am not talking about casual sex, that is promiscuous and not the same as a loving, committed, free relationship.

That is where my search is at currently, if those persons in a loving, committed, and free relationship can give themselves completely - not withholding anything - how is that not good?


ETA: To your second point, the aspect of our loving expression (the conjugal act) is a sacred participation with the will of God - correct? So, I am not working my way backwards as you are asserting, I am integrating all aspects and trying to understand.

PabloSerna said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

If sodomy between gays isn't wrong because because it can't produce children, then why not condone every other sex act between a heterosexual couple that can't produce children?

This whole conversation is putting the cart before the horse. You're starting with the act of sex and trying to work back up to Godliness instead of starting with Godliness and letting that inform you about sex.

---

To your first point:

From Humane Vitae:

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator."

+++

First off, relax - this is a discussion on a fan board for Texas A&M sports. I am being open about my inner thoughts and faith journey. Put down your torches and shackles, no need to burn me at the stake for questioning established teaching of the Magisterium. My ongoing faith formation as a lay Dominican actually encourages this search for truth.

Now, I have been making the case that much of the condemnation of homosexuality comes down to the physical act (sodomy) since the church has made it clear that "self mastery" is required to live out the universal call to holiness. This follows for all persons regardless of their sexual orientation that are not called into Holy Matrimony.

To me... me only.. it would seem that this teaching is directed toward heterosexual relationships who have the capacity to participate in the will God to bring forth new life. So it would be licit for homosexual persons to live in community - as long as they do not have sex. I am not talking about casual sex, that is promiscuous and not the same as a loving, committed, free relationship.

That is where my search is at currently, if those persons in a loving, committed, and free relationship can give themselves completely - not withholding anything - how is that not good?


ETA: To your second point, the aspect of our loving expression (the conjugal act) is a sacred participation with the will of God - correct? So, I am not working my way backwards as you are asserting, I am integrating all aspects and trying to understand.

---

Do SSA people not have the ability to participate in the will of God by making different choices (say, self denial)?

"Pablo, you have done something that rarely happens on this board. You've gotten basically every christian background denouncing your thought process here. And its not just a 'faith walk' or a 'mental exercise', this is truly what you believe because your situation dictates that you not look at the bible and see what is plainly stated."

+++

Oh really?

Let me ask you a question: How do you, one MEEN Ag, understand the will of God?

Yeah you missed it.

ETA: I have been quoting from three key documents; The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Humane Vitae (Pope Paul VI) and Theology of the Body (Pope John Paul II). If you read through these documents they reference heavily the scriptures and the Doctors of the Church.

One MEEN Ag, has recognized something about how we as Catholics understand the will of God. I don't recall if One MEEN is Catholic, however, I am assuming that is not the case.

This is at the heart of Vatican II and why some in the RCC cling to what I call, "smells and bells" - which sounds dismissive, but is not meant as such - just my observation that the idea of mission is something only religious do. When in fact the laity are called to do much more than just attend mass once a week (LINK). This method of thinking is what is termed "top down" or "Imperial Method" which avoids dialogue with our shepherds out of fear.

To my Catholic brothers and sisters - how many of you have read any of the documents of Vatican II?

Go back to my original post and take 5 mins to watch Dr. Choiniere's part on (9:32) "How Does the Church Learn" for a much better explanation.