The Church needs to change - but not in the way they all say

[Amppax]

The essence of a relationship, eh? Well thats not vague at at all.

 

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear. I'll admit that philosophy isn't my forte.  

Essence (the way I'm using it) refers to what is essential to a being, that which makes it what it is, what differentiates it from other things. So, what a homosexual relationship is, by nature (again, philosophical, not scientific), is incapable of being what a heterosexual relationship is, by nature. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Amppax

[HopefulHeart]

As with everything America publishes, this article is so vague that there are a number of different things they could be saying, and just enough deniability that they can complain if anyone calls them heterodox. James Martin, in just about everything he writes, practically embodies this. I have a feeling he was the main writer. 

That being said, I thought there were some interesting points in the first couple of paragraphs, particularly the point that society understands our position, and rejects it. And, in some ways, I think there are several good points later on, although I would probably approach things a little differently. 

Good post. I had a very similar impression of the article.

I do like the emphasis on human encounter. Valuing other individuals (while, of course, upholding God's Truth) is so important in evangelization and in human relationships in general. But, then again, that's a rather obvious point. Maybe I'll have more concrete thoughts to share later on.

[CrossCuT]

And this is why I disagree with the author when it is stated that Catholics totally understand the topic. How could they when there are not painfully specific definitions and explanations about infertile miracles and relationship essences. They should write a new section of the CCC to explain all of this.

[Credo in Deum]

So if by some miracle a woman ends up pregnant by her wife, that would still be wrong, right? Just asking since we're talking miracle status now...

That would never happen, so there's no point in debating it.  God works miracles but not ones which are opposed to His will. Your question is as ridiculous as the "could God create a rock so big even He could not move it?" questions.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[CrossCuT]

That would never happen, so there's no point in debating it.  God works miracles but not ones which are opposed to His will. Your question is as ridiculous as the could God create a rock so big even He could not move it?

Didnt Mary get preggers by a miracle? I suppose the stipulation here is you can only get preggers from a male miracle and not a female miracle.

Edited July 14, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Credo in Deum]

Didnt Mary get preggers by a miracle?

She did, but her pregnancy did not involve actions which are contrary to God's will. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[CrossCuT]

She did, but her pregancy did not involve actions which are contrary to God's will. 

Even when I was a Catholic, I never presumed to know God's will other than he wants us all to be with him. Dont know how that translates into you dictating who can and cannot be miraculously impregnated. Should add that chapter to the CCC too.

[Credo in Deum]

Even when I was a Catholic, I never presumed to know God's will other than he wants us all to be with him. Dont know how that translates into you dictating who can and cannot be miraculously impregnated. Should add that chapter to the CCC too.

I'm not presuming to know anything other than what God has revealed through His Church.    

[CrossCuT]

I'm not presuming to know anything other than what God has revealed through His Church.    

I dont recall reading or hearing anything about miraculous lesbian impregnation being revealed incompatible with Gods will, but Ive never taken a college level Theology class so who knows. Is there a chapter on that?

Edited July 14, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Credo in Deum]

I dont recall reading or hearing anything about miraculous lesbian impregnation being revealed incompatible with Gods will, but Ive never taken a college level Theology class so who knows. Is there a chapter on that?

I also didn't recall reading anything about miraculous interspieces impregnation being revealed incompatible with Gods will, but this is probably because it shouldn't have to be since such a conclusion can be reached with the use of common sense.  

[Seven77]

So if by some miracle a woman ends up pregnant by her wife, that would still be wrong, right? Just asking since we're talking miracle status now...

 you mean like those square circles I keep hearing about? miracles don't defy logic and reason.

[franciscanheart]

 you mean like those square circles I keep hearing about? miracles don't defy logic and reason.

Wait, I thought that was the whole thing about miracle magic -- that they do defy logic and reason.

[Nihil Obstat]

The article said several times not to look at the court case in 'binary', 'black and white' terms. Well what is that implying? A binary black and white reading would be that the court decision is either all good or all bad. If we are being encouraged not to view it as such, then this entails that there must be both some good and some bad.

So, what is the good here, from the Catholic perspective? 

[Seven77]

Wait, I thought that was the whole thing about miracle magic -- that they do defy logic and reason.

 they don't actually… a miracle is someone not able to walk spontaneously getting up from a wheelchair, but a miracle wouldn't involve someone inexplicably turning into a unicorn…

[MarysLittleFlower]

You just said that the reason it is man and woman is that it is fruitful. Then proceeded to backslide saying "but sometimes couples are infertile, but its ok cause its deeper than that...its just natural"

Dont buy it.

But its fruitful in the nature of it. That's the difference. A homosexual relationship has no potential to be fruitful - it is impossible in nature. That's different than an exception. 

She means that man and woman, husband and wife, are called to a vocation [marriage] which cooperates with God in the work of creation. Homosexual unions cannot fulfill this requirement even if they wanted to; however, infertile couples still do, since if by God's will a miracle [children] was to be granted to them, it would not be one which is opposesed the very reason for why He created us male and female.

I agree.  Also loved the addition of those all too familiar words "pastoral" and "dialog".  Makes me wonder what Christ words "those who aren't with me, are against me" would be met with today.  Maybe some would tell Christ he needs to be a little bit more pastoral and a little less black and white.

yes that's what I meant... A relationship of a man and woman is naturally disposed to children - but in the case of a homosexual couple it cannot happen. Nature is not just what happens but the way things work and were designed to be. I had a similar impression of the article... I do think the civil marriage thing is black and white. It either fits morality or not. Charity is dealing with people not ideas.

So if by some miracle a woman ends up pregnant by her wife, that would still be wrong, right? Just asking since we're talking miracle status now...

a miracle with a man and woman would not be going against God's design of nature... Such a miracle with a homosexual couple would be going against God's own design and since He doesn't contradict Himself, it doesn't happen. There are miracles that obviously ignore natural laws - that's why they're miraculous - but they don't contradict the moral matters in God's design. 

Perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of natural? It can be confusing a little and sometimes easy to confuse the Natural Law with things that happen in nature. For example many will argue that homosexual sexuality is not against Natural Law because animals in nature do it and so it's believed to be natural. Animals, such as the male lion will kill off all the cubs of a pride it takes over, but it is hardly within Natural Law for a man to kill the children of a woman he marries. The Natural Law is 'written in the hearts of every man and woman', we have the rational to know right from wrong whereas animals do not. Although many may deny it aloud today most still know in their hearts the natural order of sexual intercourse is between man and woman, because the female's sexual organ is the natural (ie natural law) vase for the male's sexual organ and not other orifices.

This is the use of the word nature I meant too. Nature is not just what happens. It refers to the design of nature, in the philosophy of natural law. That is how nature was understood up to modernism... Thanks to ambiguous atheistic modernism today people define it as just whatever happens. That's not thecorrect philosophy though.. I heard this from a philosophy prof in a lecture I think related to the FSSP.