FishEaters Survey
#21
(03-28-2014, 08:45 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: But, in Truth, sodomy is one of the least practiced sexual acts among homosexuals, with one third of homosexuals never engaging in it at all. Sorry, but it's true: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...101811.php )

Um, I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing that particular datum asserted on that particular website...
Reply
#22
(03-29-2014, 12:40 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(03-28-2014, 08:45 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: But, in Truth, sodomy is one of the least practiced sexual acts among homosexuals, with one third of homosexuals never engaging in it at all. Sorry, but it's true: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...101811.php )

Um, I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing that particular datum asserted on that particular website...

The first article talks about how sodomy is one of the least practiced of sexual acts among homosexuals; the second says (paraphrasing) that 1/3 of homosexual men don't engage on sodomy at all (but that lots of British straight people do -- like a third of them, with 10% preferring it over other sexual practices).
Reply
#23
(03-27-2014, 07:58 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Sodomy (not the disorder of "homosexuality") is the sin that cries out to Heaven (and straight people do that, too).

I think you have a serious misunderstanding about Catholic moral theology, which is built around Catholic philosophy.  Sexual practices within couples aside -- erotic behavior between two people of the same sex violates the core principles of the human person, according to Catholicism.  It is a violation of the order of the universe as regards human personhood, sexuality as an aspect of that personhood, the place of reproduction within that ordered construct of life and fruitfulness, the sacred concept of complementarity of the two genders as a reflection of God Himself, and as a primary vehicles (man-woman love) for the grace of God to enter into the universe.  Sexualizing a same-sex friendship destroys the God-designed boundaries between persons of the same sex.  It doesn't "intensify" that relaitonship; it doesn't grace it; it doesn't change it from something good (friendship and giving) to something better.  It does quite the opposite: it perverts that very friendship by introducing a morally toxic element into it.

Separately, certain sexual practices are forbidden.  However, an important aspect of moral theology is that there are in fact gradations of sin, degrees of sin, between and across categories.  Not all grave sin is of equal weight. Thus, homosexual behavior is intrinsically (objectively) of greater moral weight than conventional fornication, regardless of the erotic expression of either. And that is even though they both obviously violate the Order of the Universe (being outside of traditional marriage).  That reflects not only my own training ini moral theology but those who have graduated from the Angelicum in Rome.
Reply
#24
(03-29-2014, 02:43 AM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 07:58 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Sodomy (not the disorder of "homosexuality") is the sin that cries out to Heaven (and straight people do that, too).

I think you have a serious misunderstanding about Catholic moral theology, which is built around Catholic philosophy.  Sexual practices within couples aside -- erotic behavior between two people of the same sex violates the core principles of the human person, according to Catholicism.  It is a violation of the order of the universe as regards human personhood, sexuality as an aspect of that personhood, the place of reproduction within that ordered construct of life and fruitfulness, the sacred concept of complementarity of the two genders as a reflection of God Himself, and as a primary vehicles (man-woman love) for the grace of God to enter into the universe.  Sexualizing a same-sex friendship destroys the God-designed boundaries between persons of the same sex.  It doesn't "intensify" that relaitonship; it doesn't grace it; it doesn't change it from something good (friendship and giving) to something better.  It does quite the opposite: it perverts that very friendship by introducing a morally toxic element into it.

Separately, certain sexual practices are forbidden.  However, an important aspect of moral theology is that there are in fact gradations of sin, degrees of sin, between and across categories.  Not all grave sin is of equal weight. Thus, homosexual behavior is intrinsically (objectively) of greater moral weight than conventional fornication, regardless of the erotic expression of either. And that is even though they both obviously violate the Order of the Universe (being outside of traditional marriage).  That reflects not only my own training ini moral theology but those who have graduated from the Angelicum in Rome.

You are mistaking homosexuality, the disorder, the sexual attraction for members of one's own sex, for sexual acts. Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual behavior. One can be a homosexual and never act on it. Homosexuality is not a sin, no matter how much some people seem to want it to be. Acting on homosexual desires is a sin. And it's sodomy that is the sin that cries out to Heaven and which is something 1/3 of homosexuals don't engage in and is also the least practiced sexual act between homosexuals, and which many heterosexuals do engage in. It's very clear and simple.
Reply
#25
And to keep referring to homosexuals by one particular sin is a pretty low rhetorical trick meant to incite the ire of listeners/readers.

It says - these aren't people like us they are sinners, and what''s more sinners of the worst kind. We should hate them.

Well, when we say that WE sin.

When Jesus talked to the Woman Taken in Adultery in the Gospel of John He called her Woman, not Adulteress.
Reply
#26
(03-29-2014, 03:53 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: You are mistaking homosexuality, the disorder, the sexual attraction for members of one's own sex, for sexual acts. Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual behavior. One can be a homosexual and never act on it. Homosexuality is not a sin, no matter how much some people seem to want it to be. Acting on homosexual desires is a sin. And it's sodomy that is the sin that cries out to Heaven and which is something 1/3 of homosexuals don't engage in and is also the least practiced sexual act between homosexuals, and which many heterosexuals do engage in. It's very clear and simple.

I was surprised to read the other day that sodomy is defined in Jone's Moral Theology as "unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter or heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercouse (imperfect sodomy)."  It seems from this definition that sodomy between persons of the same sex would indeed encompass more acts than just "rectal intercourse," since that is specifically mentioned as pertaining to sodomy between people of the opposite sex. Maybe a lot of the misunderstanding in these discussions comes from people applying the "moral theology definition" to such cases, instead of the "dictionary definition," which is more restricted?  ???

And Jone was quick to point out that any sexual acts outside of marriage are always gravely sinful.
Reply
#27
(03-29-2014, 02:36 PM)Deidre Wrote: I was surprised to read the other day that sodomy is defined in Jone's Moral Theology as "unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter or heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercouse (imperfect sodomy)."  It seems from this definition that sodomy between persons of the same sex would indeed encompass more acts than just "rectal intercourse," since that is specifically mentioned as pertaining to sodomy between people of the opposite sex. Maybe a lot of the misunderstanding in these discussions comes from people applying the "moral theology definition" to such cases, instead of the "dictionary definition," which is more restricted?  ???

And Jone was quick to point out that any sexual acts outside of marriage are always gravely sinful.

Some people use the word to refer to oral sex and bestiality, too. So...

But it seems that when the word comes up at all in typical conversations in Catholic circles, it's used to describe anal sex between homosexuals. And homosexuals are too often called "sodomites" when a third don't ever do that, and among the ones that do, it's one of the least practiced sexual acts. And then from "sodomy" it goes to "sins that cry out to Heaven." So we get "homosexual"="sodomite"="a person who does things that cry out to Heaven for vengeance," as if it's an automatic equation. But it's simply not the case at all -- even among active homosexuals, nevermind the chaste ones, and there are plenty of them around (there are plenty even on this very forum). 

So I get defensive about that because I see it as a form of scapegoating, really. And I see it as sloppy thinking, which is bad enough in itself, but much worse because it has the power to mislead and, especially sad, harm people. If I were a chaste traditional Catholic homosexual, I'd be very upset that any time homosexuality is mentioned, there's the automatic assumption of active homosexuality, which too many people apparently think MEANS anal sex (which heterosexuals do, too, and no one cares), a "sin that cries out to Heaven" along with murder. People who refer to homosexuals qua homosexuals as "sodomites" are showing ignorance or, at the risk of sounding "judgy" and only because I can think of no other good reason for it, being malicious.  Obviously, some homosexuals are sodomites (and so are some straight people). But to equate a male's attraction to his own sex with "sodomy," reducing it all to a matter of genitals and ignoring anything having to do with Eros, is dehumanizing (and, as I've said before, shows a very limited understanding of the Catholic view of sexuality -- or even just a common sense one).

But like you said Jones said, any sex outside of marriage is sinful, so that covers a lot!



Reply
#28
...and sex inside marriage which is not ordered towards the procreative and unitive is also sinful.  Eg., the use of contraception, or the use of sex by one spouse over another as a form of power.
Reply
#29
(03-29-2014, 03:54 PM)triumphguy Wrote: ...and sex inside marriage which is not ordered towards the procreative and unitive is also sinful.  Eg., the use of contraception, or the use of sex by one spouse over another as a form of power.

Exactly (though I'd likely replace "ordered toward the procreative" with "open to the procreative" in that most of the time, when married folks come together, they're not thinking "we're making a baby," but "we are showing our love for each other." But unless their striving for unity is open to the procreative aspect of sex, it's disordered).

in any case, it just really perturbs me that alllllllllllllll of the myriad of ways in which heterosexuals abuse the gift of sex are overlooked and almost all focus on disordered sexuality is on homosexuals. While I can totally relate to the righteous anger at the activists' mucking up our culture with things like trying to get gay "marriage" legalized, getting schools to treat homosexual sex as just another option in life's "sexual banquet," treating homosexuality in itself as not disordered (which is NOT to say "sinful"!), the media's game-playing with all this -- the bottom line is that two wrongs don't make a right. The activists' being wrong and jerks and using the power of government to beat Christians over the head doesn't at all make sloppy thinking, and venting rage by calling homosexuals, in themselves, "sods" and the like, OK.

I'm not only concerned for Catholic homosexuals who strive to live up to Church teachings, and their feeling understood and welcome, I'm concerned with the future of the trad "movement" when the children of trads (who, I'm sure, we all hope will be smarter and better educated than we are) leave home, get into "the real world," and discover that the name-calling and unwarranted accusations are wrong. Too many people throw out babies with bathwater, and I'd hate for the children of otherwise good trads to leave the Faith because their parents refuse to learn, want to scapegoat, insist on judging and shunning people, and so forth. I predict this WILL happen in many "toxic trad" families, and it's so unnecessary, and heartbreaking. (I'd love to be able to poll trad parents in 15 years, after getting their "take" on all this now, and finding out where their children are in terms of the Holy Faith.)

But pragmatic considerations aside, too much of what is said and thought about homosexuals and homosexuality simply isn't rooted in Truth, and I like the Dominican "Veritas" as a personal motto. If we're not dealing with reality, some time down the road, it will come back to haunt us. I don't want that to happen. I want Tradition to be restored and embraced by every soul on earth.

Reply
#30
My comments in green.

(03-29-2014, 03:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-29-2014, 02:36 PM)Deidre Wrote: I was surprised to read the other day that sodomy is defined in Jone's Moral Theology as "unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter or heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercouse (imperfect sodomy)."  It seems from this definition that sodomy between persons of the same sex would indeed encompass more acts than just "rectal intercourse," since that is specifically mentioned as pertaining to sodomy between people of the opposite sex. Maybe a lot of the misunderstanding in these discussions comes from people applying the "moral theology definition" to such cases, instead of the "dictionary definition," which is more restricted?  ???

And Jone was quick to point out that any sexual acts outside of marriage are always gravely sinful.

Some people use the word to refer to oral sex and bestiality, too. So...

But it seems that when the word comes up at all in typical conversations in Catholic circles, it's used to describe anal sex between homosexuals. And homosexuals are too often called "sodomites" when a third don't ever do that, and among the ones that do, it's one of the least practiced sexual acts. And then from "sodomy" it goes to "sins that cry out to Heaven." So we get "homosexual"="sodomite"="a person who does things that cry out to Heaven for vengeance," as if it's an automatic equation. But it's simply not the case at all -- even among active homosexuals, nevermind the chaste ones, and there are plenty of them around (there are plenty even on this very forum). 

But what I'm saying is that people might be using the word "sodomy" to refer to homosexual acts other than anal sex, such as oral sex, (which is the only other form of "copulation" between two people of either sex that I've heard of, and I'd rather leave it that way) and that if they are, they are correct, according to the definition related to moral theology (which I'm pretty sure is the definition most Catholics are practically concerned with). Just as "scandal" has a narrower definition when considered within the context of moral theology, "sodomy" apparently has a broader one. Using the word "sodomy" to refer to bestiality would be incorrect as far as moral theology goes: they're quite different sins. I agree that it is incorrect and unkind to refer to non-practicing homosexuals (or people who suffer from SSA, which I think is a more precise phrase) as "sodomites" because it's wrong to just assume that people participate in any given sin. But it might not be incorrect (or necessarily an indication of bad will) to refer to active homosexuals as "sodomites" (though I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so).

So I get defensive about that because I see it as a form of scapegoating, really. And I see it as sloppy thinking, which is bad enough in itself, but much worse because it has the power to mislead and, especially sad, harm people. If I were a chaste traditional Catholic homosexual, I'd be very upset that any time homosexuality is mentioned, there's the automatic assumption of active homosexuality, which too many people apparently think MEANS anal sex (which heterosexuals do, too, and no one cares), a "sin that cries out to Heaven" along with murder. People who refer to homosexuals qua homosexuals as "sodomites" are showing ignorance or, at the risk of sounding "judgy" and only because I can think of no other good reason for it, being malicious.  Obviously, some homosexuals are sodomites (and so are some straight people). But to equate a male's attraction to his own sex with "sodomy," reducing it all to a matter of genitals and ignoring anything having to do with Eros, is dehumanizing (and, as I've said before, shows a very limited understanding of the Catholic view of sexuality -- or even just a common sense one).

I think that there should be a clarification of terms. People should either agree for the purposes of discussions here that "homosexual" means "chaste person suffering from SSA" or differentiate in their comments (should they feel the need to make any) between "practicing homosexuals" and "non-practicing homosexuals," since I agree that they're not the same thing.

But like you said Jones said, any sex outside of marriage is sinful, so that covers a lot!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)