Is gender just a matter of choice?
❤️ Click here: A persons sex is a matter of
Again and again we read, study, and reflect that pride is the worst of all sins. But in my last relationship I don't get hard I just do it to pleasure her relationship I don't get hard I just do it to pleasure her?
I don't even like holding hands. The sense of crushing obligation affects men just as much. In order to prove that sex is not only limited to two categories 's Sexing the Body addresses the birth of children who are intersex.
Is gender just a matter of choice? - Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not.
Catholics who are homosexual, confused about their sexuality or convinced they were born in the wrong body deserve the same attentive pastoral care as anyone else, Pope Francis said. Flying back to Rome on Oct. I accompanied them; I helped them draw closer to the Lord, although some couldn't. But I never abandoned them. The pope also told the story of a Spanish husband and wife whom he invited to the Vatican. The husband was born a girl, but always felt like a boy. When she was in her 20s, she told her mother she wanted a sex change operation, but the mother begged her not to do it as long as she was alive. When her mother died, she had the surgery, the pope said. Come on, confess so you can take Communion. It is a moral problem. It is a problem. Are these press conferences on the plane being abused by the Press? All questions ought to be contextual in my opinion. Gives one the impression that the Press are taking advantage of our dear Pope Francis' goodwill. America Magazine ought to be asking these hard questions of the Papal PressGallery in my opinion. Kevin - I don't think that is fair to the pope. Pope Francis has essentially said the same thing before and both days on this trip, adding on day two his often repeated accompaniment of the sinner. The Holy Father is being very consistent - Love the sinner and hate the sin, or accompany the sinner but never deny the reality of the sin. And always oppose those who would try to indoctrinate that a sin is not a sin. When you destroy that, you dirty or disfigure the image of God. Mercy has the last word. And where is the center? It depends on everyone. For me the center, the core of Amoris laetitia is Chapter IV... But there is sin, there is a break, but there is also mercy, redemption and care. I explained myself well on this, right? This is what I call ideological colonization. The pope provides leadership not answers to every question. Various popes have made conflicting statements and may even appear or be inconsistent. The roles of clergy, theologians, and the laity also factor into the meaning of Catholic teachings. This is in the spirit of Vatican II. Pope Francis is clearly leading in a comprehensively less judgmental direction, in that sense more the pastor than the theologian. He still is a man of his age and location. We might well be the same in ours, acknowledging the leadership of a benevolent pope and engaged with the conversation among people of good will. It was widely known that Amoris Laetitia AL was not going to adequately address all the issues facing families. The only issue that was adequately addressed by AL was Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. As for homosexuality, it is yet to be seen how the bishops will be guided by AL when it said that homosexuals should not suffer from any type of discrimination. Does this mean that if a homosexual who wants to teach Math in a Catholic elementary schools can do so? Will non-discrimination mean that they will not be fired? Another question is this: How will the bishops change their language in describing homosexuals? According to the magisterium the homosexual orientation is an objective or intrinsic disorder. But what is the term disorder mean? Science has shown from mental health and from animal biology that it is entirely natural, and not in any scientific sense disordered. The magisterium says that such a disorder is not be viewed in this sense, but in the theological sense. Beyond a meaning that it is not ordered to procreation, that I have countered by my examples in past comments on this subject, I have not worked out what a theological meaning might be. The Vatican theologians have conceded that the condition of homosexuality is entirely natural, and so not disordered in this sense. However, they have not offered any clear explanation of what meaning it does have. I do not want to enter into a protracted debate on this subject here. I hope that this issue will get more attention by the Pope and Bishops in the immediate future as there is much to be desired by how this issue was left not-finished in AL. You are getting more extreme all the time. What is its biological end? I am a medical scientist and I have to say you do not know what you are writing about. Is infertility also not a disorder? Would an activity that results in a 20 to 100-fold increase in infections and gastrointestinal disorders be considered natural? It is one thing to have compassion and accompany people as one finds them, as the Holy Father proposes. But, must one also lose one's common sense? Pope Francis decries the ideological colonization of gender theory and you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Cannibalism and underage sex and polygamy were widespread in many cultures. By your definition, you would have to approve all of them as natural. Or murder, or alcoholism, or every sexual proclivity. I'm sure I will get a long response on this but think what your principles imply. You should look up the rate of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis, HIV, HPV, Head and Neck cancer, etc. Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 54% 11,277 of people diagnosed with AIDS. Syphilis infection can also place a person at increased risk for acquiring or transmitting HIV infection. Surveillance data from several major cities throughout the country indicate that an average of four in 10 MSM with syphilis are also infected with HIV. HIV-positive MSMs are up to 40 times more likely to diagnosed with the disease, resulting in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people. Are impure thoughts and murder still both mortally sinful? I haven't thought about such things for a long time. My experience growing up Catholic focused all my attention on plumbing and left none for racism or contempt for the poor. I was taught a very egocentric morality. Jesus and Paul knew nothing of constitutive homosexuality and we are still quite ignorant about ourselves. The notion that anyone's sexual orientation is a choice is one of those insidious lies that will likely haunt us and hurt other people for a long time. Augustine passed on some beautiful ideas, but he also ensured that Manichaeism will always be with us. The church has a great deal to learn about human sexuality and would do well to be a little more circumspect. I will go to my grave convinced that until we have a council where the bishops bring their husbands, we will continue to hurt people terribly. Sexual orientation is not a sin. Neither is living it out in a loving, committed, responsible way. Conscience occupies a special place in Catholic teaching. Had I the authority to change the current teaching on homosexuality and did not do so, my conscience would convict me of very serious sin. One day love will cast out our fear. Jerome, I have you beaten in that I am 74 years old. So ,we each have some life experience. Going through Catholic school and Catholic undergraduate college, I was exposed to more than sexual sins and taught about social concerns. I am very pleased with my Catholic educational background. I feel that mine well prepared me for life. So, as we, most people come from very different backgrounds. We are not all as ignorant of LGBT issues as some people are. Some people are mightily informed and are pushing in the right direction for increased education. Certainly Jesus and Paul either knew nothing of constitutive homosexuality or, if either or both were homosexual, each probably did not know that other homosexuals existed. In those days one did not know that there were other homosexual people. For a homosexual to know another homosexual each would have to come out to the other. So for thousands of years we did not know about homosexuality. Paul refers to effeminates. But he does not refer to masculine homosexuals. So, he did not understand the full spectrum of LGBT either. Today, our bishops know generally as much about homosexuality as do our sociologists and doctors. But, many bishops chose to live in the past as far as being leaders. The pope does accompany LGBT people, but he finds it difficult to update theology based upon knowledge and science that exists today. When he moves in the correct direction he is attacked by the theological conservatives. This is a very difficult environment for him to operate within. Maybe when the conservatives are replaced with the knowledgeable bishops things will change. Alan, I know how you feel. However, I have been studying this issues for many years now. Keep in mind, that In ancient times it was the belief that every human was born heterosexual. In other words, heterosexuality was consider the natural condition of humans. There was no other condition or orientation that someone was born with. No one knew about any condition we now know as homosexuality. Therefore, and rightly, our ancient fathers considered homosexual acts performed by heterosexuals to be an abomination, and this is the belief today because for heterosexuals such acts go against their nature and are unnatural. I think we can both appreciate this fact. However, it is quite a different issue to declare that expressing one's love sexually is immoral in a homosexual marriage or in a permanent, faithful and loving relationship by two people of the same sex who also agree to abide by the responsibilities and obligations of a heterosexual marriage. We can debate the issue of procreation, but many heterosexual couples are infertile and there is no requirement that heterosexual couples have children in order for the marriage to be valid. This issue of homosexual marriage was never considered in ancient times or by the Church in more recent centuries because we are only starting to understand this condition. I recently read a doctoral dissertation on homosexuality and there are many studies that demonstrate that people are born with this condition and do not choose it. Nevertheless, there is no definitive study that has pinpointed just how people are born with this condition. Some studies also show there is some evidence that this condition can be formed by nurture or the environment but the stronger evidence points to genes. However, no prominent scientific organization has declared homosexuality as a distorted condition of heterosexuality. If you are interested in contemporary scholarship on homosexuality, read Sexual Ethics by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler. I believe this teaching should be the subject of a re-thinking even though I don't profess to have all the answers. However, I feel strongly that those born with a homosexual orientation should not be required to live a lifetime of sexual abstinence when at the same time we tell them that they cannot enter into a permanent, faithful and loving relationship. In other words, every heterosexual has a choice of being single or being married. If they chose being single they must abstain from sex. If they chose marriage they can have all the sex they want. Unfortunately, there is no such choice for homosexuals according to the teaching of the magisterium as they are required to live a life of sexual abstinence. This is an impossible burden for most homosexuals. Even priests who choose to be celibate can get a dispensation, marry someone and have all the sex they want. What dispensation exists for homosexuals? Alan, It is not a matter of being 'fair'. It is a matter of right reason and theological argument. Our education and heterosexual nature make it difficult for many of us to grasp what might be moral for homosexuals. A same-sex marriage in the Catholic Church may not come to pass in our lifetime. However, the teaching about homosexuals who enter into a permanent, faithful and loving non-Catholic Christian marriage or a civil marriage, may be changed by the Catholic Church. For example, my parish priest in a private counseling session with me on a host of theological issues, believed that such unions are not necessarily evil. It also may come to pass that homosexuals in such unions are the best they can do in such circumstances. If the principle of graduation in the sacrament of reconciliation can be used in circumstances like contraception or divorce and remarriage, enabling them to receive Holy Communion without a requirement for them to go to confession every week to confess the same so-called sin, it may also apply to homosexuals. Thanks for your comments. Michael — you make several glib statements in this piece that are just not true. What about the desires of the spouse, the logistic complexities of life, health problems, relationship problems, issues with fertility, unwanted divorce, what specific sexual acts are desired many are immoral for all people, no matter what they desire? Even married couples are required by Catholic teaching to follow Humanae Vitae. Then you say any priest just has to leave their vocation to have sex, as if it were no big deal. No pain involved, no sense of failure or weakness. Are you really serious? All sex acts are not moral, no matter how much a relationship is loving or faithful. Every single heterosexual, if they are trying to live a Catholic life, or if they are just morally alert, should know many of their sexual desires should not be acted upon or even accepted as normal and good just because they are intense. The Church teaches that homosexual sex is not analogous, in any way, to married sex, from a biological, psychological, philosophical or religious analysis, as many are proud to point out e. There is no scientific biological test at birth or later that can distinguish hetero from homosexual, just as there is no test to distinguish homosexual from bisexual, or pedophilia for that matter. It is all by self-identification, or activity, and as many have reported, it is a fluid term can change frequently over a lifetime, from hetero, to bi, to homo, to whatever. Even the performance of an act does not define an orientation. It all comes down to self-identification. That is the science. In your third paragraph, you admit the science is not settled, yet you want the Church to change its doctrine based on this unsettled science. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate. It seems clear to me that all of this heterodoxy is derived from your initial rejection of HV and your severing of the unitive from the pro-creative in your opposition to HV. The Church wants every homosexual to be saved, to be healthy in this life and then eternally happy in heaven. That is real caring, real loving. Tim, When it comes to my comments, you alway miss the point and misunderstand what is obvious to most people. You seem to believe that by making certain assertions that you prove my comments are in some way wrong-minded and irresponsible. Let me be as brief as I can in addressing your comments. When I said that people can marry and have all the sex they want, I did not mean that some people do not have health issues preventing them from having sex or that some may not have a strong desire for sex. I was referring to the normal ability and desire for sexual intercourse in most marriages. Every heterosexual person has a 'choice' to be single or married except homosexuals according to the CC. That is a true statement and it has nothing to do with the few that cannot find a life partner or whether some people decide not to marry because of economic or cultural issues. The freedom of the 'choice' of being single or married is not predicated on finding that perfect spouse or because economic issues move some people to remain single. Your statement that all Catholics must follow HV does not move the conversation forward, as this teaching has not been received by about 80% of worldwide Catholics, about 40% of US priests and most theologians. Such an assertion ignores the problems with this teaching and the underlying principles of HV that demand that this teaching should be changed. For details, you can read or reread my published essay on this subject or the report on contraception by the Wignaard Institute. You can respectfully disagreement with HV for good reasons and still remain a faithful Catholic. When I said that a priest can get a dispensation, get married and have all the sex they want, I did not mean that such a decision is not difficult. You missed the point. Even a priest who has taken a vow before God to be celibate, can get a dispensation. Yet there is no dispensation whatsoever for a homosexual from the requirement to live a life-time of sexual abstinence. My statement focuses on the fact that homosexuals do not have the choice to either remain single or get married while heterosexuals have this choice. Homosexuals only have one choice, the requirement to accept permanent continence which is an almost impossible burden for most of them. This does not mean that other Catholics do not have impossible burdens to carry, such as serious health issues. You are conflating one issue with another. Your statement that there is no test for homosexuality or heterosexuality is not the point. You say it is all based on self-identification. How else would anyone prove being heterosexual or homosexual, except by self-identification and behavior? What we do know is that scientific studies show that a same-sex orientation may well be based on genetics as an innate disposition they are born with. In other words they are naturally born attracted to people of the same sex as heterosexual are naturally born attracted to people of the opposite sex. We also know that homosexuality is not a choice in the same way that being heterosexuality is not a choice. No prominent scientific organization has studied this issue and concluded that homosexuality is a disorder of heterosexuality or a condition or orientation that is chosen. It is a natural inclination or sexual orientation that one is born with. This also does not mean that every single homosexual is born with this orientation, but only that the overwhelming percent of them are. Some studies argue that the environment may be a cause for this orientation, but such studies are in the minority and are questionable. Your only argument here is what the Church teaches, full stop. You keep repeating the teaching as proof certain that what they teach is the absolute moral truth. As I pointed out, contemporary scholarship demonstrates that the historical teaching about homosexuality and homosexual acts were based on the belief in ancient times that everyone was born naturally attracted to people of the opposite sex. No one ever believed that people were born with a natural attraction to people of the same sex. Homosexual acts by what we now call heterosexuals were immoral then, as they are now. However, homosexual acts between homosexuals in a permanent, faithful and loving relationship were never an issue that anyone considered. As I said, homosexual acts in a same-sex union or civil marriage or non-Catholic Christian marriage are not necessarily immoral. If you want details of contemporary scholarship, read Sexual Ethics by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler. You can disagree but this does not mean such arguments are misguided or wrong because they are in tension with the teaching of the magisterium. Tim, it was not my intention to issue a dissertation here, only some short comments. As you know, I have given detailed comments and arguments on this issue in previous articles in Am. My comments are not unfaithful, folly or wrong-headedness as your current comments seem to imply. I believe that the pleasure associated with marital sex must be put at the service of love and faithfulness. As for your comment about the Church's prohibition of separating the unitive and procreative meanings of marital acts, you refuse to accept the fact that both NFP and contraception separates these meanings. How can limiting marital sexual intercourse to infertile times for a long time or a life-time, as Pius II and HV permit, be in any way 'open to procreation'? I do agree with you that the Church wants every homosexual and heterosexual to be saved. I disagree that salvation for homosexuals should be predicated on the mandatory and imposed requirement of living a life of sexual abstinence. Such a decision must be voluntarily chosen for it to work, not imposed on them from the magisterium. It is not a matter or finding the fortitude and courage to follow a teaching of the magisterium to accept a life-time of sexual abstinence. It is about right reason, practicality and questionable stoic burdens being imposed on homosexuals without the choice of marriage or permanent union. Finally, I am for real caring and real loving. I am also for real mercy and being realistic about imposing burdens on homosexuals that most find almost impossible. We don't impose life-time sexual abstinence on heterosexuals except if they choose remaining single. Heterosexuals have the choice of remaining single or marriage and this 'choice' is not predicated on whether a person finds a life partner.... I am also for being open-minded to new scholarship on this issue and for keeping the door open to debate despite the fact that the magisterium has made clear that such debate is closed, full stop. I don't think further exchanges with you will be productive because they will lead to protracted arguments which go on forever. I am open to further discussion with you at another time. Michael — thanks for being as brief as you can be only 1100 words this time. You still use phrases that require much clarification. It is hardly possible, even for a libertine. All our choices are constrained by morality. To be clear, you reject HV but the Catholic Church does not. HV predicted that opposition to HV would lead to further breaks from the natural law. I read your article. It is not convincing. Since bisexuals are not homosexuals, do you then say the ancient fathers are right about their situation? Well, the avant garde is moving away from fixed orientations to one of freedom from biology. You want the Church to approve homosexual acts in a gay marriage. All of them or only those that are consistent with a healthy lifestyle? What happens to the unitive and pro-creative link? Perhaps you may wish to consider taking up this conversation either in direct correspondence or in a post on one of your own social media accounts, since it's outgrown what makes sense for a comments box. Tim, My so-called brief reply was tongue-in-cheek because your comment was extremely long and filled with very many statements and assertions. If a married couple wants to have sex once a day and another couple once a month, what does it matter as long as both are expressing their love responsibly. Both couples are having all the sex they want and are able to do. I disagree on the so-called prophetic nature of HV, as I have already given you my reasons many times in recent blog commentaries. Yet you ignore them. No prominent scientific organization that has studied contraception concluded that it causes abortion, spousal abuse or other ills of our secular society. This type of argument in support of HV, namely that the increase in contraception is causing the increase in every ill of Western society is a false narrative. Until then, the overwhelming scientific research to date suggests that there is a link. Your argument, once again, is pure speculation that has not happened, nor might never happen. We only can deal with what we know and the research to date. As for your comments about bi-sexuals, if someone is bi-sexual it means that they posses an attraction to people of the opposite sex and people of the same sex. However, once a person heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual enters into a permanent, loving and faithful relationship civil marriage, non-Catholic Christian Church marriage then both spouses are bound by fidelity and love and every other responsibility and obligation of a marriage or permanent union. As for the unitive and procreative link and your assertion that I have not thought this thing through, I have already addressed your question which you constantly ignore. Let me try once again: Both NFP and contraception separate the unitive and procreative meaning of marital acts. The answer is obvious: the agents as well as these acts are not open to procreation. Therefore their marital acts separate the unitive and procreative meanings. So, either both NFP and contraception violate HV or they do not. Nevertheless, there are many other reasons why HV should be responsibly reformed as my published essay and the report on contraception of the Wignaard Institute make clear. With respect to birth control and children, the CC does not require married couples to have children or a specific number of children in order that their sacramental marriage is valid. Many couples do not have children for a host of good reasons. As long as married couples do not have an anti-life attitude, the decision of birth control, as the decision about children, should be left up to married couples, not the CC. I think our exchanges have to come to an end here Tim, because they are becoming unproductive. Let us leave the judgment about our arguments to those who read and reflect on our comments. The Supreme Court in PP v. The Church says NPV is not a break of the unitive and pro-creative and is completely different from contraception. Their sexual acts remain as open to procreation as nature permits. McDonald--please explain your comment. Are you saying that Jesus wants vengeance on gay people for homosexual activity? Does Jesus want us to take that vengeance on His behalf? How many gay people have you killed, beaten, tortured, etc. If not, why not? If all you are saying is that we are to leave the judgment of such activity to God, then the rhetoric seems a bit overblown. Personally, I would much rather trust God with that decision than you. Speaking at his blessing on Sunday, Pope Francis supported the Mexican protesters who marched against the introduction of gay marriage into their society. The Pontiff's comments came as tens of thousands of demonstrators in Mexico took to the streets. Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself. The biggest threat to family is not from gay marriage or LGBT movement. The biggest threat to family is the changing nature of society, especially in the area of economy and technology. For example, the single biggest reason that young people today delay marriage is because they cannot afford it. The financial burden of a family is overwhelming for so many that this is becoming a worldwide phenomenon. It seems that economic hardship is also the major cause of family breakups. Likewise, the advance of technology, especially in the area of communication, is creating an environment that allows people to live alone just fine. Data is showing that the number of people living alone is the highest on record and this trend is continuing. Are you so stupid? Perhaps had he done that he would have saved the institution of marriage. They did not give any help to the poor and needy. Americans reflect these sins better than any other nation. We lead the world in consumption of prescription drugs. Pride was the reason why Lucifer fell from Heaven. Did we forget the worst sin of them all? Why the incessant display of public umbrage about select sins while contumaciously ignoring the Biblical, medical and cultural deadly sins that date back to Genesis and Ezekiel!? Then the LORD asked Cain, Where is your brother Abel? The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger. He is shaming us. What is our excuse? Are we so full of pride that we must talk about the Sodomites sin of sodomy? Where are those other sins so frequently listed by some that are supposedly threatening our culture? The Pharisees are alive and well today. These are enough to keep Americans busy for a few generations. One day Lipitor will be seen in the future as a medication that was needed by the true Sodomites. Pope Francis also commonly speaks out against materialism and consumerism. But, your interpretation of the sin of Sodom does not comport with a plain reading of the text, and all of Jewish and Christian history, including St. Paul until the sexual revolution. Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. These drugs save millions of lives every year. Every country in the world has them, and they have all been proven effective in large clinical trials. So, this criticism is way out there. FYI - your comment word count is 666! Your comment about 666 was petty. I will respond for the sake of the other readers. If one were to research the FDA indications for statins and biguanides e. They are well founded labels. Statins: The incidence of heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia is 1 in 500 which is 0. Metformin:Type 2 Diabetes has risen drastically in America as correlated with obesity trends. Some of my colleagues have begun to stop seeing patients under their care. They do so because these patients refuse to adopt lifestyle modifications. These patients expect their physicians to give them prescription drugs so that they can continue to live in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, i. These patients are a source of fiscal burden on our nation. About 90% of chronic medical illnesses in America are self-inflicted. Again and again gluttony and sloth exact their medical toll just like pride. The list is growing of physicians in America who are fed up with patients who refuse to act responsibly and rather demand from their doctors to give them what they want as to prescription drugs e. I at least see these noncomplaint patients if they are Latino so as to teach them in their native language of Spanish. They come to America with decent health other than lack of vaccinations , eat what America provides, and then become a medical statistic just like Americans. They are truly ignorant. Obesity, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cancer, and many other chronic medical illnesses arent nearly as high in Latin America. America leads the world in many of these. We became physicians to alleviate true victims of medical suffering. We did not join this vocation to be enablers of people who don't appreciate their lives, the medications developed for true victims of maladies and use physicians who have sacrificed much at great cost of financial debt, to simply be pill pushers. Sadly most Amercians just dont care e. Once again, pride, gluttony, sloth have gripped our culture. The sins that cry out to heaven were pride, gluttony, slothfulness and greed. Gay sex is not the preeminent sin that some choose to make it. Their weight and dysfunctional marriages and children are far far worse. My apologies Fr Sawyer if you are referencing me. I am a published lay writer as an MD-MBA and also as a consultant for firms and organizations. Please delete any and all of my comments if they are violating the comments policy. I had no idea 300 words were the max limit. What a clear case of fat shaming? Metformin and most of the statins are now generics and are sold with very low profit margins. Pharmaceutical companies focus on newer agents. I too am a physician and your views on this are malpractice. Of course, people should eat healthy foods and exercise. But, that doesn't work for millions of people. Have a look at WebMD, the Mayo Clinic site or this one which addresses many fears of the misinformed. In fact, more than 170,000 people who take statins have been studied in detail and for extended periods of time. We certainly know the benefits of statins. Data from the 2008 JUPITER Trial suggest a 54 percent heart attack risk reduction and a 48 percent stroke risk reduction in people at risk for heart disease who used statins as preventive medicine. In the rest of the OT, where Sodom is regularly mentioned, not once is its crime said to be homosexual behavior. Ezekiel describes it as 'pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but that did not aid the poor and the needy'. The Book of Wisdom explicitly charges both the men of Sodom and the Egyptians with inhospitality. Therefore if heterosexuals chose to perform homosexual acts it was akin to idolatry and perversion, as it is today. No one ever thought that a human could be naturally born with a sexual orientation toward those of the same sex. To continue to tell gay and lesbian Catholics today that they have only one choice, namely, to practice a life-time of sexual abstinence is to impose excessive stoic burdens on them, especially when they are denied the choice of entering into a marriage or permanent union. It is my prayer that the CC will find a realistic path for the salvation of Catholic homosexuals in a permanent union or in a non-Catholic Christian Church marriage without imposing an almost impossible burden on them. Michael - I agree the story of Sodom describes an attempted same-sex rape of men. There is only one indication of their orientation - they had no interest in women note they completely rejected Lot's daughters. In any case, the term and idea heterosexual was unknown then a 19th century invention. The Greco-Roman world assumed men would be attracted to pretty women and men particularly youths and so the closest their concept came to a modern term would be bisexuality. Paul in Roman's 1 26-27 which warns against same-sex behavior. What about those acts by bisexuals, which is the growing self-identification today? You haven't really thought this through. For those promoting gay sex, which acts are considered moral or is it anything goes as long as it is consensual? What it they are extremely unhealthy? The Church has always held against the morality of specific sexual acts by men and women, inside or outside marriage, and doesn't condemn psychological orientation. They understand all people are tempted in many different ways and are always ready to offer consolation, support and forgiveness to repentant souls. Even today, there is no known scientific test for distinguishing a bisexual from a heterosexual or homosexual, short of self-identification which changes with many people. This is in contrast to the robust objective scientific ways of defining a man and a woman DNA, chromosomal, male and female biological phenotype, psychology, etc. So, no point pretending to be approaching this scientifically. Tim, Every human in ancient times e. They never used the words 'heterosexual' or 'Bi-sexual, etc'. Any homosexual behavior was assumed to be done by heterosexuals e. It is Gentile idolatry that is directly at stake in the Pauline text, and the perverted homosexual behavior of heterosexuals to which it is presumed to lead, not the homosexual acts of those who by 'nature' share the homosexual condition and the just and loving homosexual acts in which it might issue. You have not paid attention to my previous answer: Any person heterosexual, homosexual or bi-sexual who enters into a permanent, loving and faithful marriage or union Civil, non-Catholic Christian Church marriage, et al must never have sexual relations with anyone who is not their spouse. We are not talking about premarital sex, anything goes as long as it is consensual, or what you consider extremely unhealthy. I already answered your other question about scientific studies and homosexuality. Go back and read them. I fully understand the teaching of the Church and pray the magisterium will find a way for the salvation of homosexuals that does not require and impose on them something that is an almost impossible burden. I think we have to end our exchanges on this for now Tim because they are becoming unproductive. If you want more details, read Sexual Ethics by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler. Michael - you are always repeating the same categorical statements, as if by mere repetition, you think you are making the statements more persuasive. The whole idea of heterosexual is a modern invention. Like heteronormative, or opposite-sex marriage, all these terms are ideological, invented to legitimize a revolution in thinking. Acts that were not e. So, the ancient fathers were right and would come to the same conclusion today. They would agree with the Church. But, you are so certain that you are right and the Church is wrong. You pray the magisterium will come around to your way of thinking. But, we need only one gospel - that of Jesus Christ and the Church he protects from teaching error. This is my final comment on this, for now. I find it insightful that St Paul is clear that it is better to marry than to burn. And yet the Church pushes Catholic priests and homosexuals to burn since they are not allowed to marry. Another troubling teaching is the pro-creative component. Medically speaking we already know of married couples who are infertile either due to anatomical, physiological, genetic or hormonal problems. What to do with these poor married folks? I find the constant focus on sex, sex, sex driven by man and not God. Again and again we read, study, and reflect that pride is the worst of all sins. One of the more beautiful aspects of Pope Francis is his Ignatian spirit. Ignatius was all about inner conversion, listening, discerning, etc. These aspects of Catholic living are almost non-existent in our conversation. But when it comes to pointing fingers and decrying sex, they are deafening. For good reasons men and women with good hearts have left the Church. Pride is the problem. Gluttony is tied to pride. Some people often minimize the unrealistic burdens that are imposed on gays and lesbians such as the requirement that they live a life-time of sexual abstinence for their salvation. Such things must be voluntarily chosen, not imposed. Even priests voluntarily chose celibacy and permanent abstinence, take a vow before God, but can gain a dispensation, get married and engage in sex in the service of love. The answer for gays and lesbians is not a question of mustering the fortitude, courage and faithfulness to follow the magisterium and never respectfully challenge this teaching. I hope the magisterium and Pope Francis will find a more realistic pastoral path for the salvation of those born with a same-sex orientation that want to love God and neighbor. There are many philosophical and theological problems with the teaching about homosexualty and the homosexual behavior in a permanent, faithful and loving relationship between members of the same sex that is best left to another time and in another article. This is my final comment here. We can't do it without you—America Media relies on generous support from our readers. Please visit our to learn how you can invest in our work by or. Please contact us at with any questions.
Weird Things Women Do Before Sex
Most people identify with the gender that is aligned with their biological sex, but some people identify with the opposite gender, both genders or neither prime. Certainly Jesus and Paul either knew nothing of constitutive homosexuality or, if either or both were homosexual, each probably did not know that other homosexuals existed. The magisterium says that such a disorder is not be viewed in this sense, but in the theological sense. They are well founded labels. I find I have a different favorite position depending on the guy exactly for the length reason. We are not all as ignorant of LGBT issues as some people are. Obstaining from sex can or having too much of it are signs of north rooted trauma, sometimes not having to do with the act of sex but how ones thoughts were influenced on the subject. To the tooth-sucking horror of Japan's corporate elders, the show struck a powerful chord with the generation they spawned. This discomfort can, in turn, lead to caballeros,isolation, and difficulty moving around. NJ: LEA, p 3-4. He eventually committed suicide. All his efforts landed him a partner who he feels blessed and lucky to be with every day.
