Please help me respond to this post

I don’t know where to begin with this at the point I’m in on this debate. I’m talking the first paragraph that i didn’t post. Would someone help me with this one? Please!

I say the next part as a Catholic who loves Catholicism. Gay families in general are not the people destroying the world and straight. Catholic families in general are not saving it. I grew up in a Catholic house hold (and for 5 years of my childhood I also went to an Episcopal Church). Being a “good Catholic family” did not stop my step-father from beating my mother and sister and I on a regular basis. It didn’t stop the things we were exposed to or the crushing poverty that we lived in. Having good Catholic grandparents model a good Catholic marriage didn’t stop any of what happened from happening. Neither did the church. Not the priest, not Communion, or Catechism or Reconcilliation. None of the sacraments fixed what was broken in the household. Not a single gay marriage – not the childless unions of my friends or the ones with beautiful, happy children in their homes – affected my personal life in any way. What they DID DO was help model what a happy home looks like so that I could imitate it later. What being good Catholics DID do was prevent my mother from leaving for 20 years. Today, the church teaches that it’s okay to leave a situation like the one our family was in, but the damage was already done by earlier teachings and a change that came too late to make a difference. 20 years later, she was still trying to work it out.
A point of this personal example is that following tenants of faith for the sake of dogma does not create faith. The holiness doesn’t lie in the words and rules and you can’t force holiness or moral behavior simply with putting rules in place for them to follow. At best, you just get an empty faith that is moral in name only

The Catholic church HAS changed its views and practices, especially in regards to family, over the years. As it grows in its understanding of social issues, it does – very slowly and with great deliberation – adapt and come to new and increased understanding. It also already practices one-way spiritual transgenderism. I have no doubt that the church will continue to change and grow and one day will have a different position on relationships. The issue is that the church formally recognizes one union and one union only – a procreative one. I absolutely understand why this is and I appreciate the theology behind it. I believe in the theology of procreative union. But I also believe that other types of unions are not formally recognized because the theology behind the creative force in non-procreative union is not something that the average lay person is going to be able to wrap their head around. Therefore, theoretically, it is best to just leave it alone rather than lead everyone into confusion and states of delusion (which I mean in the Eastern sense). Because it’s hard enough to get people to understand same-sex marriage. I think this – like Tantra (which is also not meant for lay people) – takes an awfully pessimistic look at the emotional and spiritual capabilities of lay people. I believe it will change. I don’t believe the Catholic church will ever call it ‘marriage’ because what the Church means by ‘marriage’ (this specific yab-yum type of physio-spiritual union) is not what the lay person means by ‘marriage.’ I don’t believe it will come as a compromise or a “loss” when the change happens. It will come because the church ready to teach and broaden the understanding of creative force within human relationships.

Was there a question in there somewhere? I must have missed it.

Basically how would you respond to these accusations that are obviously false?

First, I would express empathy for the person’s difficult childhood. Next, I would point out that Church teaching is not dependent on how many bad Catholics there are nor on how many good gay people there are. We are all sinners created in the image and likeness of God who are capable of both good and evil.

Doctrine has developed, but not changed. The person is presuming as inevitable a change in Church teaching that will bring it in accord with his own current beliefs. To say nothing of how that is pretty convenient for him, it is not really an argument. You cannot illustrate that such a position is in line with Catholic teaching by proposing that it will almost certainly one day be changed to reflect that position even though today it directly contradicts it.

That sex is ordered towards procreation is a biological fact. It’s not something the Church invented to make life difficult for gay people.

I would respond like this…

-Tim-

:rotfl: That’s another option. :smiley:

Isn’t that just a form of this

Thank you guys. I will have to keep you posted.

I still don’t see what there is to respond to. It sounds like the guy is expressing his opinion that the Church will someday formally recognize some sort of homosexual relationship. We all know that ain’t gonna happen, but if he wants to think it will, so what?

It’s kinda like people who say the Church will someday ordain women. They can’t be bothered by trivial details such as dogmatic teaching. But what do I care if they want to believe the Church will someday ordain women? Or recognize homosexual unions? Or the tooth fairy?

OP, one thing you should remember in a debate of this nature is that it’s okay for people to have their opinions.You can debate facts (ie. the Church willnot change the doctrine on Marriage because truth cannot change, etc…). But you can’t change a person’s opinion, and you should not try. You just present the facts, pray, pray some more, and then answer any questions people might ask.

So, if there was an actual question, or point of contention in all of the above post#1, you can address that with fact. But if it’s just someone giving their opinions, you are not using your time wisely to continue a debate with them.

I"ll admit that I only briefly skimmed the OP, but the only thing that stood out to me as debatable was this: “The Catholic church HAS changed its views and practices, especially in regards to family, over the years.”

To that I would ask, “In what regard has the Church changed its view on the family? What are some concrete examples of this? Are you speaking in terms of your personal perspective about what the Church teaches/has taught, or are you referring to some actual doctrine/teaching that can be objectively seen? And if there is some objective teaching we can look at together which has changed, how exactly does that fit into the topic we are discussing…because I’m not seeing the connection?”

No. One only “sticks their head in the sand” when that which is being ignored is important.

-Tim-

Catholic families are saving the world. They’re bringing the Gospel to the world and giving the Church priests and nuns. Gay “families” are not doing this, because (1) they cannot provide children to the world, and (2) they are living in sin.

The most damage being done though is not gays, but straights who are not living moral lives. No fault divorce is what destroyed what marriage is to look like, not gays. Contraception destroyed the purpose of marriage, not gays.

I grew up in a Catholic house hold (and for 5 years of my childhood I also went to an Episcopal Church). Being a “good Catholic family” did not stop my step-father from beating my mother and sister and I on a regular basis.

Personal experiences vary and don’t determine dogma. Personal experiences do set good examples (or bad ones), which does impact how the children and society turns out. Hence, strong families means strong society.

What being good Catholics DID do was prevent my mother from leaving for 20 years. Today, the church teaches that it’s okay to leave a situation like the one our family was in

He needs to distinguish between divorce and separation. Divorce has always and ever will be wrong and forbidden. But separation - remaining married but living separately - is allowed and always has been.

The Catholic church HAS changed its views and practices, especially in regards to family, over the years.

No moral teaching has ever changed. They cannot, they’re fixed as part of Natural Law. He needs to be able to show proof of some moral teaching changing, otherwise he’s confused on what changes have taken place (and what haven’t).

The issue is that the church formally recognizes one union and one union only – a procreative one. … the theology behind the creative force in non-procreative union is not something that the average lay person is going to be able to wrap their head around.

Sex doesn’t mean ‘plug whatever opening in the body you can’. That’s his definition, but it’s not the biological and objective definition. He wants to say that sex can be sticking your finger in your nose, which is absurd.

The Church isn’t making up definitions, these things are as fixed as 1+1. Man’s sexual organs have a certain purpose, which doesn’t take a theology degree to understand.

In seriousness, ask him why one guy picking another guy’s nose can’t be considered a sexual act. Watch his reaction. If he says “Yes” it can be, then he’s exposed his position as radical and absurd and there’s no reasoning with him at that point because he’s completely enslaved to sin and blinded (and literally only prayer can fix that). If he says “No,” then he has admitted that sex must have a more objective meaning than plugging what feels good.

Sorry if this is graphic, but that’s how you have to speak to them, and this kind of question is good at shaking them up a bit to see the problem.

Thanks Catholic Dude long time no see!

It is not a biological fact that sex is ordered STRICTLY towards procreation. We can look to the animal kingdom for verification of this fact. Sex acts are used throughout nature to establish other forms of relationships and emotional and cultural interactions. The most glaring example of this would be bonobos. To say that human sexuality is easily pared down to procreation is missing a great deal of not only what it means to be human, but also the potential of creative energy. That is not to discount the Sacramental beauty of sex entered into with openness to procreation (and i believe its a sacrament) or to raise up sex that is entered into purely for ego gratification. The church already uses non-procreative union - it’s right there in Mass. It’s just not currently accessible to the lay person. It’s not a big leap to believe that this will change one day. Really NOT trying to be patronizing, but I find that Deida has a distastefully presented but good representation of the application of this concept in lay life. (Haha I said ‘lay’). If you prefer the term ‘developed’ in relation to doctrine, I can see that and would agree that it’s a better term.

Not true. If it were true then the Church would never approve, perform, and “formally recognize” marriage between a man and a woman if either of them were incapable of procreating ( eg. due to age, phyical disability, sterility, etc.)

This was my latest response.
The church recognizes throughout salvation history that humans are created and ordered towards certain relationships and that order is visible in our very bodies. Marriage (actual marriage) is known to be divinely instituted because it is both extolled in revelation and is verifiable in the observed nature of the relationship: it is ordered towards the creation, care and nurturing of new life.

And if it weren’t in principle ordered toward procreation it wouldn’t be pleasurable. We know this because we have all kinds of manners of physical contact which are neither pleasurable nor procreative, such as handshaking. If handshaking led to pregnancy, then yes, handshaking would be pleasurable. The fact that people have sex mainly because they want pleasure doesn’t prove anything, except that most people are slaves to their passions.

Also, saying that procreation is an unlucky byproduct of sex is ridiculous. Pleasure is the by product. Procreation is the purpose. The entire point of male genital stimulation is to achieve the ejaculation of semen. Semen carries sperm. Sperm carries the necessary genetic information to create a child.*

Children are the most consequential, lasting, and throughout all animal species, including humans, universal result of sex. Unless you’re going to try and argue that the functionality of the reproductive system was an accidental development of tissues whose primary propose was to generate pleasure, but by some unfortunate mishap developed the ability to propagate the species by creating two perfectly complementary systems of genetic information transfer.

The church already uses non-procreative union - it’s right there in Mass. It’s just not currently accessible to the lay person.

But the difference is our union in mass (heaven on earth) is the complete union of man with God, our fullness body and spirit united with God’s fullness. Due to the incarnation he became man both body and spirit. His fullness our fullness in union together.

Sex and marriage is a sign and our hope of that union to come. A sign that we no longer need once in heaven so therefore we are no longer given in marriage in heaven. Remember the Pharisees asking Jesus who the widow will be married to and his answer?

The problem is when we withhold a part of us its no longer that union that you speak of. You are withholding your fertility. A part of you. That would be likened to Jesus not given himself fully in time 2000 years ago or presently in the mass. Love is defined as a total self gift that’s what Jesus did and you are withholding that very gift when Paul tells us to live that very gift and that husbands should love their spouse as the Jesus loved the Church. Eph5:25

Do not let your questions go unanswered. The person made an assertions and needs to either back it up or retract it. Learn to be a parrot.

“You asserted that the Church has changed its view on family. In what regard has the Church changed its view on the family? What are some concrete examples of this? Are you speaking in terms of your personal perspective about what the Church teaches/has taught, or are you referring to some actual doctrine/teaching that can be objectively seen? And if there is some objective teaching we can look at together which has changed, how exactly does that fit into the topic we are discussing…because I’m not seeing the connection?”

And no one claims that it is. Sex is PRIMARILY ordered toward procreation, but also ordered toward unity of the spouses. We cannot divorce the these two inherent meaning of the marital act.

We can look to the animal kingdom for verification of this fact. Sex acts are used throughout nature to establish other forms of relationships and emotional and cultural interactions.

In the animal kingdom there is no evidence of sexual pleasure as there is with humans…we are unique in that. But the bigger issue here is that this logical fallacy attempts to equate humans with animals. Why should I look to the animal kingdom, which also eats its young when times get tough, for my moral backdrop?

The church already uses non-procreative union - it’s right there in Mass. It’s just not currently accessible to the lay person.

What’s that got to do with the topic we are discussing? Mass is not sexual, so I am not seeing how this non-procreative union, communion, is relevant to the marital act.

It’s not a big leap to believe that this will change one day.

You mean the definition of Marriage? If you mean in regard to the Church, it’s an impossibility because God instituted Marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, and God does not change. So, no, it cannot change, regardless of how badly anyone wants it to change. Sin is still sin regardless of how many people engage in it, and regardless of how civil law defines it.

You should be asking more questions (and expecting answers to those questions) than you are answering. :thumbsup:

Good point. I will use some of these so stay in touch. I may post what she says :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.