Pope says no to blessing same-sex unions

[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.

Of course! Just as it nurtures the marriage of a gay couple.

[Anonymous]

I really wonder how people can call themselves Catholic in good conscience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they have no theological problem with a couple of 80 year olds marrying (male/female) then it’s clear they can think outside the theological box for what they choose to.

[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

+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.

No, I can see the close-minded religious do not want an honest discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And when a gay couple marries and adopts an unwanted child?

[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.

Of course! Just as it nurtures the marriage of a gay couple.

You clearly do not believe that God create man and woman for certain ends. That’s okay. You’re just not Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

No, I can see the close-minded religious do not want an honest discussion.

You definitely are the one running away from honest discussion.

[Anonymous]

NP, and I haven't read through this thread, but I have to say that I'm happy to hear this. The church should not be bending to the ways of popular culture. It follows God's teachings, which are clear on this issue.

Not returning for a debate on this as I know that 99% of you don't agree with me, which is fine. But there are some of us who are pleased that the Pope did not cave to political pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP, and I haven't read through this thread, but I have to say that I'm happy to hear this. The church should not be bending to the ways of popular culture. It follows God's teachings, which are clear on this issue.

Not returning for a debate on this as I know that 99% of you don't agree with me, which is fine. But there are some of us who are pleased that the Pope did not cave to political pressure.

What does god think about pereira and altar boys? Is that still ok with the church as long as the boys stay quiet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, and I haven't read through this thread, but I have to say that I'm happy to hear this. The church should not be bending to the ways of popular culture. It follows God's teachings, which are clear on this issue.

Not returning for a debate on this as I know that 99% of you don't agree with me, which is fine. But there are some of us who are pleased that the Pope did not cave to political pressure.

What does god think about pereira and altar boys? Is that still ok with the church as long as the boys stay quiet?

No, that is not okay with the Church. The abuse scandals in the church has harms many, for whom the task of reparations is far from done.

It still is not any answer to the theological questions that are the subject of this thread to point to the abuse scandals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

No, I can see the close-minded religious do not want an honest discussion.

You definitely are the one running away from honest discussion.

According to Aquinas, if I proved this, it would mean that non-procreative sex is a moral good according to Secunda Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologiae.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP, and I haven't read through this thread, but I have to say that I'm happy to hear this. The church should not be bending to the ways of popular culture. It follows God's teachings, which are clear on this issue.

Not returning for a debate on this as I know that 99% of you don't agree with me, which is fine. But there are some of us who are pleased that the Pope did not cave to political pressure.

Where is it clear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

No, I can see the close-minded religious do not want an honest discussion.

You definitely are the one running away from honest discussion.

According to Aquinas, if I proved this, it would mean that non-procreative sex is a moral good according to Secunda Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologiae.

I thought you said the above wasn’t your point, but now it maybe is, if it’s true that it deters aggression, which you seem unsure of. As I said before... okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, and I haven't read through this thread, but I have to say that I'm happy to hear this. The church should not be bending to the ways of popular culture. It follows God's teachings, which are clear on this issue.

Not returning for a debate on this as I know that 99% of you don't agree with me, which is fine. But there are some of us who are pleased that the Pope did not cave to political pressure.

Where is it clear?

Paul writes about it in Romans. The Old Testament also condemns homosexual practice, and in several places defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, and I haven't read through this thread, but I have to say that I'm happy to hear this. The church should not be bending to the ways of popular culture. It follows God's teachings, which are clear on this issue.

Not returning for a debate on this as I know that 99% of you don't agree with me, which is fine. But there are some of us who are pleased that the Pope did not cave to political pressure.

Where is it clear?

Paul writes about it in Romans. The Old Testament also condemns homosexual practice, and in several places defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Scholars disagree on how to read 1:26. Some say it is a prohibition against sodomy, regardless of genders involved. So, not clear.