Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The “natural order” involves might over right, oppression and murder in multiple species, including Homo Sapiens, so if I were you I’d find another argument

- biologist

If Natural Law is not a legitimate source of church doctrine, then you have invalidated today's pronouncement, because its central claim is that homosexual sex is "not ordered to the Creator’s plan." This is a natural law argument, and you just refuted natural law.

Natural Law is not the same as biological nature. You’re confusing concepts and did not engage with the PP’s point.

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224/25–1274) propounded an influential systematization, maintaining that, though the eternal law of divine reason is unknowable to us in its perfection as it exists in God’s mind, it is known to us in part not only by revelation but also by the operations of our reason. The law of nature, which is “nothing else than the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature,” thus comprises those precepts that humankind is able to formulate—namely, the preservation of one’s own good, the fulfillment of “those inclinations which nature has taught to all animals,” and the pursuit of the knowledge of God. Human law must be the particular application of natural law.

This is not a complete and accurate articulation of Aquinas or natural law. And you’re not even attempting to defend the notion that all animalistic urge are good or should be encouraged, which undercuts your position.

I don't have to defend that notion. I never made the statement that merely because something exists in the world that it must be good. But in Aquinas' natural law defense of matrimony, he draws on comparisons between the needs of animals and humans, only establishing the importance of matrimony due to the need of extra parental intervention to raise humans to adulthood. Therefore it is worth discussing what is observed in nature and whether it is a good.

In Summa Theologiae q153, Aquinas writes: "Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is to a man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race." "

He goes on to assume that the sole good of sex is procreation. But now we see many examples of the benefits of nonprocreative sex.

Well the OP did and I thought that’s what the thread was about!

Your point is what? The Catholic Church is misinterpreting Aquinas?

I am saying that today's statement relies on a natural law argument which is invalid. If you dig through your history, your encyclicals, and read through the many footnotes, it comes down to a belief without evidence that the purpose of sex is procreation, and only procreation.

....To quote today's statement:

Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

If they said it's forbidden in the Bible, we could argue the bible. But no, they argued "the designs of God inscribed in creation." And therefore we are asked, like Aquinas did, to inspect nature to answer what "end" or ends does sex serve?

[Anonymous]

Archaic religion is still archaic, news at 11.

How on earth can you be shocked?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to find a middle ground between the Pope and W.A.P.

W.A.P.?

A Cardi B song that does not mean Wet And Pruny.

Just looked it up. The video is uhhhh.... wow!

Wasn’t Biden seen schmoozing with her? She’s one sick puppy. Her Grammy act made her look like a dog in heat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the church teaches that sex is not just for pro-creation, there is not going to be acceptance of gay marriage.

It teaches that sex is ordered toward procreation. It’s more nuanced than you give it credit for. Infertile couples aren’t doing anything wrong.

How does that work out when wives become menopausal? Half a married life could take place after menopause. Ridiculous to insinuate that all sex is ordered toward procreation. That basically puts us on the level of all animals, is that what the Church is suggesting?

Of course not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The “natural order” involves might over right, oppression and murder in multiple species, including Homo Sapiens, so if I were you I’d find another argument

- biologist

+1. I get that it’s just a slogan but saying “it’s natural” or “born this way!” doesn’t get you anywhere. Psychopaths are also born that way. And the slogan doesn’t even make any sense for all LGBTIAQ+.... issues. Transgender people are... born with the wrong genitalia apparently so they can’t shout “born this way!” If you disagree with the Catholic Church, that’s 100% fine but its theology may be more consistent than your personal philosophy.

No responses to this...? Yup, that’s what I thought - mostly everyone is just screaming pedophiles! and homophobes! and can’t be bothered to learn any theology.

Except for the people who aren't screaming that, whom you ignore.


According to the Catholic Church, it is not a sin to be mentally ill. So it's really hard to understand the point you are making.

You’re not being clear. Do you think LGBTIA+ people are mentally ill? Regardless, the church doesn’t teach that being LGBTIAQ+ is a sin. As a PP pointed out there are certainly homosexual priests. The Church talks about certain acts being sinful.

You said that Catholic theology is more consistent than "natural" or "born this way" arguments. And somehow you imagined the "gotcha" is psychopaths! As though "born a certain way" logic entitles someone to deprive someone else of their life. No. Being born a certain way allows you to live your life that way, as long as it does not interfere the rights of others. That's Locke. Two dudes kissing does not harm me or you.

Again, not the OP’s argument. But if your point is everything is of equal moral value as long as it doesn’t hurt a third party, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Archaic religion is still archaic, news at 11.

How on earth can you be shocked?!

C’mon - how can anyone be surprised at this “news?”

It wasn’t easy for me at 26 and a cradle Catholic raised by a Catholic father and a Methodist mother to marry DH, an un-baptized adult male without any church affiliation.

- father had to complete a statement advising that he was aware of and approved of this pending union involving an unbaptized person. Had to be co-signed by his parish priest.

- mother had her Methodist minister complete a separate form signed by her minister

- fiancé was not at all interested in converting to Catholicism and therefore would not be baptized, we were told that we would not qualify to have a Catholic nuptial Mass. instead, a permanent deacon would perform a brief ceremony without communion. (Actually, this was a relief - the briefer and simpler the better!)

- attended six sessions with our marriage celebrant

- attended several meetings with our marriage mentors, a long married couple from the church

- attended a weeklong required marriage retreat



-

[Anonymous]

Who cares? They are a bunch of pedophiles who will rape little boys and girls. They are far removed from Christianity and Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The “natural order” involves might over right, oppression and murder in multiple species, including Homo Sapiens, so if I were you I’d find another argument

- biologist

If Natural Law is not a legitimate source of church doctrine, then you have invalidated today's pronouncement, because its central claim is that homosexual sex is "not ordered to the Creator’s plan." This is a natural law argument, and you just refuted natural law.

Natural Law is not the same as biological nature. You’re confusing concepts and did not engage with the PP’s point.

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224/25–1274) propounded an influential systematization, maintaining that, though the eternal law of divine reason is unknowable to us in its perfection as it exists in God’s mind, it is known to us in part not only by revelation but also by the operations of our reason. The law of nature, which is “nothing else than the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature,” thus comprises those precepts that humankind is able to formulate—namely, the preservation of one’s own good, the fulfillment of “those inclinations which nature has taught to all animals,” and the pursuit of the knowledge of God. Human law must be the particular application of natural law.

This is not a complete and accurate articulation of Aquinas or natural law. And you’re not even attempting to defend the notion that all animalistic urge are good or should be encouraged, which undercuts your position.

I don't have to defend that notion. I never made the statement that merely because something exists in the world that it must be good. But in Aquinas' natural law defense of matrimony, he draws on comparisons between the needs of animals and humans, only establishing the importance of matrimony due to the need of extra parental intervention to raise humans to adulthood. Therefore it is worth discussing what is observed in nature and whether it is a good.

In Summa Theologiae q153, Aquinas writes: "Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is to a man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race." "

He goes on to assume that the sole good of sex is procreation. But now we see many examples of the benefits of nonprocreative sex.

Well the OP did and I thought that’s what the thread was about!

Your point is what? The Catholic Church is misinterpreting Aquinas?

I am saying that today's statement relies on a natural law argument which is invalid. If you dig through your history, your encyclicals, and read through the many footnotes, it comes down to a belief without evidence that the purpose of sex is procreation, and only procreation.

....To quote today's statement:

Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

If they said it's forbidden in the Bible, we could argue the bible. But no, they argued "the designs of God inscribed in creation." And therefore we are asked, like Aquinas did, to inspect nature to answer what "end" or ends does sex serve?

The end of sex is indeed procreation and the creation of bonds that best support a marriage that nurtures children. I don’t think the Catholic Church is wrong here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The “natural order” involves might over right, oppression and murder in multiple species, including Homo Sapiens, so if I were you I’d find another argument

- biologist

+1. I get that it’s just a slogan but saying “it’s natural” or “born this way!” doesn’t get you anywhere. Psychopaths are also born that way. And the slogan doesn’t even make any sense for all LGBTIAQ+.... issues. Transgender people are... born with the wrong genitalia apparently so they can’t shout “born this way!” If you disagree with the Catholic Church, that’s 100% fine but its theology may be more consistent than your personal philosophy.

No responses to this...? Yup, that’s what I thought - mostly everyone is just screaming pedophiles! and homophobes! and can’t be bothered to learn any theology.

Except for the people who aren't screaming that, whom you ignore.


According to the Catholic Church, it is not a sin to be mentally ill. So it's really hard to understand the point you are making.

You’re not being clear. Do you think LGBTIA+ people are mentally ill? Regardless, the church doesn’t teach that being LGBTIAQ+ is a sin. As a PP pointed out there are certainly homosexual priests. The Church talks about certain acts being sinful.

You said that Catholic theology is more consistent than "natural" or "born this way" arguments. And somehow you imagined the "gotcha" is psychopaths! As though "born a certain way" logic entitles someone to deprive someone else of their life. No. Being born a certain way allows you to live your life that way, as long as it does not interfere the rights of others. That's Locke. Two dudes kissing does not harm me or you.

Again, not the OP’s argument. But if your point is everything is of equal moral value as long as it doesn’t hurt a third party, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I am the OP. And no, that’s not my point. If I could prove that procreative sex deters aggression, that would be a positive good, not merely a lack of harm.

[Anonymous]

^^^ can add that if a couple is infertile that doesn’t mean they don’t fit into God’s plan. The question is what ends we are created for. People who cannot serve certain ends for myriad reasons can serve others. Sex can nurture the marriage of an infertile couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The “natural order” involves might over right, oppression and murder in multiple species, including Homo Sapiens, so if I were you I’d find another argument

- biologist

+1. I get that it’s just a slogan but saying “it’s natural” or “born this way!” doesn’t get you anywhere. Psychopaths are also born that way. And the slogan doesn’t even make any sense for all LGBTIAQ+.... issues. Transgender people are... born with the wrong genitalia apparently so they can’t shout “born this way!” If you disagree with the Catholic Church, that’s 100% fine but its theology may be more consistent than your personal philosophy.

No responses to this...? Yup, that’s what I thought - mostly everyone is just screaming pedophiles! and homophobes! and can’t be bothered to learn any theology.

Except for the people who aren't screaming that, whom you ignore.


According to the Catholic Church, it is not a sin to be mentally ill. So it's really hard to understand the point you are making.

You’re not being clear. Do you think LGBTIA+ people are mentally ill? Regardless, the church doesn’t teach that being LGBTIAQ+ is a sin. As a PP pointed out there are certainly homosexual priests. The Church talks about certain acts being sinful.

You said that Catholic theology is more consistent than "natural" or "born this way" arguments. And somehow you imagined the "gotcha" is psychopaths! As though "born a certain way" logic entitles someone to deprive someone else of their life. No. Being born a certain way allows you to live your life that way, as long as it does not interfere the rights of others. That's Locke. Two dudes kissing does not harm me or you.

Again, not the OP’s argument. But if your point is everything is of equal moral value as long as it doesn’t hurt a third party, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I am the OP. And no, that’s not my point. If I could prove that non-procreative sex deters aggression, that would be a positive good, not merely a lack of harm.

**see correction**

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The “natural order” involves might over right, oppression and murder in multiple species, including Homo Sapiens, so if I were you I’d find another argument

- biologist

+1. I get that it’s just a slogan but saying “it’s natural” or “born this way!” doesn’t get you anywhere. Psychopaths are also born that way. And the slogan doesn’t even make any sense for all LGBTIAQ+.... issues. Transgender people are... born with the wrong genitalia apparently so they can’t shout “born this way!” If you disagree with the Catholic Church, that’s 100% fine but its theology may be more consistent than your personal philosophy.

No responses to this...? Yup, that’s what I thought - mostly everyone is just screaming pedophiles! and homophobes! and can’t be bothered to learn any theology.

Except for the people who aren't screaming that, whom you ignore.


According to the Catholic Church, it is not a sin to be mentally ill. So it's really hard to understand the point you are making.

You’re not being clear. Do you think LGBTIA+ people are mentally ill? Regardless, the church doesn’t teach that being LGBTIAQ+ is a sin. As a PP pointed out there are certainly homosexual priests. The Church talks about certain acts being sinful.

You said that Catholic theology is more consistent than "natural" or "born this way" arguments. And somehow you imagined the "gotcha" is psychopaths! As though "born a certain way" logic entitles someone to deprive someone else of their life. No. Being born a certain way allows you to live your life that way, as long as it does not interfere the rights of others. That's Locke. Two dudes kissing does not harm me or you.

Again, not the OP’s argument. But if your point is everything is of equal moral value as long as it doesn’t hurt a third party, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I am the OP. And no, that’s not my point. If I could prove that procreative sex deters aggression, that would be a positive good, not merely a lack of harm.

So what is your point? Homosexual sex is moral because deters aggression? Okay.

[Anonymous]

OP, now you’ve made a “correction” to an already unclear point. What is your point? Restate it please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ can add that if a couple is infertile that doesn’t mean they don’t fit into God’s plan. The question is what ends we are created for. People who cannot serve certain ends for myriad reasons can serve others. Sex can nurture the marriage of an infertile couple.

Please just STFU with patronizing infertile couples. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ can add that if a couple is infertile that doesn’t mean they don’t fit into God’s plan. The question is what ends we are created for. People who cannot serve certain ends for myriad reasons can serve others. Sex can nurture the marriage of an infertile couple.

Please just STFU with patronizing infertile couples. Thanks.

What do you find patronizing in that post? I brought it up because a PP was like whatabout menopause/infertility/etc.???

And no I will not STFU.