Gay Sexuality Is Not Something Immutable. Vices Can Just Seem That Way Sometimes.

by StumblingBlock

Human beings make choices and that’s what sin is all about.

Human beings make choices and that’s what sin is all about.

Crisis Magazine notes how Rachel Maddow tried in vain to pin Rick Santorum down on the so-called ‘immutability’ of gayness – as if she doesn’t know. People are much more than sexual organs and their loves and preferences are much more than physical, but if you’re a woman and you don’t like the idea of sex with men it probably has less to do with the fact that you don’t like heterosexual sex and more to do with the fact that you don’t like men so much. And that of course is most certainly a choice.

When Rick Santorum recently appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, the host spent quite a bit of time during the interview trying to pin down Santorum on the question of whether sexual preference is an immutable characteristic.

Maddow: Can I ask you if you believe people choose to be gay?

Santorum: Ya know, I’ve sort of never answered that question. But I suspect there’s all sorts of reasons why people end up the way they are, and I’ll sort of leave it at that.

Maddow: But it matters in terms of whether or not—I mean, legally, in terms of the types of things that we’re describing here, in terms of whether or not the Congress should challenge the Supreme Court on these issues. I mean, if it’s an immutable characteristic. You don’t know if it’s an immutable?

Santorum: I don’t know. [Later in the interview] There are people who are alive today who identified themselves as gay and lesbian and who no longer are. That’s true. I do know—I’ve met people in that case. So, I guess maybe in that case, may be they did.

So is sexual preference, whether heterosexual or homosexual, theoretically immutable, or is it subject to change?
From here the writer, Kevin Clark, discusses the APA’s definition of homosexuality, which is entirely biased, unreliable, and recently changed from a mental disorder to an ‘immutable characteristic.’ Polling data in this area is also, I believe, inconclusive for many reasons.

On being interrogated, Santorum correctly cites examples of gay celebrities and others who have switched their stated orientations as evidence of ‘mutability,’ but he declines to draw the obvious conclusion because he’s a politician. But the fact is gay sex could never have been considered a sin and a moral failing for thousands of years up until now if it were not also a choice and a perversion of sexuality. You can’t pervert something that is naturally there. Gay people are groomed into the habit of gay sex, or fall in with groups of gay friends, or they respond to family situations so bleak that they reject their own nature and their roles as men or women. People also have more gay sex in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex around, like prison.

Gay attraction is an inclination, but it’s also a cultivated habit and a choice. Still, pretending otherwise is key to the gay agenda, which seeks to normalize and spread gay sexuality. They say you can’t make people gay, but it’s exactly what they want to do. That wouldn’t be possible if homosexual attraction were simply an immutable reality of nature, but they can’t achieve their gay-topia if they don’t convince everyone that they’re just ‘born that way’ first.

The vast majority of people with gay attractions never act on them. The next biggest group of those people act on them but settle into a natural male/female lifestyle. Experts might call all these people ‘bisexual’ if they responded honestly to polls, but they’re really not, since they generally lead heterosexual lives.

The smallest group of people with SSA have sex almost exclusively with others of the same sex and reject the opposite sex. Just like that other victim group, ‘the poor,’ this consists of a shifting group of people. Nevertheless, we all know someone who lives a gay lifestyle for practically their entire life.

That rejection is a much deeper choice than sexual because men and women are much more than their bodies. It’s a rejection of the opposite sex and the role of husband, wife, mother, or father. It’s also a rejection of one’s own nature as a man or a woman, of who one was born to be. Like someone in prison, for various reasons this person has lost all hope in the possibility of a happy heterosexual relationship. It’s not an ‘acceptance’ of a natural immutable orientation like they say, but a rejection, and it’s enabled and encouraged by the habitual sin of sodomy.

*****

CATHOLIC ANSWERS

“Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner. […]

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. […]

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them. […]

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual. […]

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357)…”

Taken from Catholic Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Gay Sexuality Is Not Something Immutable. Vices Can Just Seem That Way Sometimes.

  1. Yes indeed. But in some editions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, at paragraph 2358, there was the admission that homosexual persons ‘ do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’.Apparently there was a change of mind about this admission which was removed from later editions of the Catechism.

  2. shieldsheafson says:

    No one is born a homosexual, nor is there a gene or set of genes that makes someone into a homosexual. This is certain because each human person has free will. Our genetics and other factors with which we are born can never take away or nullify free will. And any act that is freely chosen by a human person is a result of free will, not birth or genetics. Homosexual acts, as well as every other kind of serious sin, are acts of the free will. Thus, these acts are sins for which each is personally responsible. One cannot evade personal responsibility for freely chosen actions by blaming genetics.

    All humans are capable of rejecting sin.

  3. Personal responsibility for sin can be mitigated by personal circumsatances

  4. The Church has always taught, one way or another, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law.”

    What a tragedy that there now seem to be so many priests and bishops who no longer believe that. How many exactly? I think we’ll learn the answer to that question at the October synod, and I very much fear it will be an answer that will make the angels weep.

    I devoutly hope my fear is groundless and that I am completely wrong about that.

  5. shieldsheafson says:

    Yes, but some have used this to justify treating the unrepentant homosexual as if he or she were the same as a faithful member of the Church. We cannot welcome those who are unrepentant from serious sin into the Church and its Sacraments, as if they were the same as the repentant or as those who have not sinned seriously. Jesus Christ ate and drank with sinners, but He did so to teach them the truth and to bring them to repentance.

    And those who would not repent, Christ rejected, just as He rejected Herod the tetrarch by not saying even a word to him. He rejected those Pharisees and scribes who did not repent. He rejected even one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas Iscariot. Of course, it was the decisions and actions of each of these that caused them to reject Christ themselves. He would have accepted any who repented sincerely and thoroughly, and who gave up their sins to live a chaste and prayerful life.

  6. Are we sure that many priests and bishops actually believe that homosexual acts are not themselves intrinsically disordered, or is it that they do not believe that persons engaged in those acts are always necessarily committing personal sin ? I have not seen, or been able to identify, where any priest or bishop has actually, and unambiguously, claimed that homosexual acts are themselves not intrinsically disordered.

  7. The problem I see is that much if not most of the discussion on homosexuality seems to proceed on the assumption that those engaged in homosexual acts are always and without exception committing personal sin. Furthermore, that there is never a shortage of people who get very exercised about homosexuality. Pope Francis, if I recall correctly, has opined that there was too much talk about this topic. There are very many other serious issues to engage the Catholic conscience.

  8. dfxc says:

    A tangential question: Strictly speaking, how would we classify homosexual acts relative to masturbation and adultery? It would seem to me that all three impulses (i.e., lust) are similarly “inherent” and “immutable” to varying degrees according to the individual. Where’s the difference that raises our attention to homosexual acts?
    I’m not being rhetorical here, I’m genuinely interested in responses; I don’t have an answer yet myself, it only just occurred to me to start thinking it through…

  9. Robert says:

    Is murder acceptable (Abortion)? is Adultery acceptable? Genesis Adam and Eve (Male and Female) Eve was created from rib taken from Adam they are therefor one body. Hence the marriage sacrament the two shall become one, what God has joined together let not Man put asunder.
    Sodom was punished by an Act of God and sodomy takes it name from Sodom. This was before the Gospels off course.
    What is condemned is the sin of sodomy. What is being promoted is GAY PRIDE in the SIN of sodomy. The wages of SIN are Death (that’s Eternal Death Hell)
    PRIDE is the opposite of MEEK and LOWLY. PRIDE = Satan.
    Henry VIII is condemned for the Sin of Adultery and His promoting of that SIN (Divorce).

  10. Interesting that you raise the issue of masturbation which the Catechism of the Catholic Church,like homosexual acts, describes as ‘ intrinsically and gravely disordered’.
    The big difference is that the CCC at paragraph 2352 provides a different approach to masturbation. In paragraph 2 it reads ; To form an equitable judgement about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit,conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.’

    However, by contrast paragraph 2358 dealing with homosexuality does not provide any such consideration. The second sentence of that paragraph which in earlier editions of the CCC had read : They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial’ was enigmatically deleted from later editions of the CCC thus removing any equivalent consideration for those engaging in acts of homosexuality compared with those engaging in acts of masturbation.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    Some Catholic thinkers contend that the whole idea of sexual orientation is artificial, as does this Norbertine in California:
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

  12. toadspittle says:

    “A tangential question: Strictly speaking, how would we classify homosexual acts relative to masturbation and adultery? It would seem to me that all three impulses (i.e., lust) are similarly “inherent” and “immutable” to varying degrees according to the individual. “
    I presume “Dfxc” (Lovely name! Is it Indonesian?) thinks it’s possible to relate masturbation which every single one of us has done – (even him or her,) with adultery – which not all of us have done, only a great many of us, and homosexuality, which another some other gang of us has done too – and asks how we would “classify” them.
    Because a thing is “inherent,” it doesn’t mean for a moment it’s “immutable.” Why should it be?
    Anyway. how will we classify them? Sins! That’s how!
    …Like everything else we do. Like lying, missing Mass, shooting lions named Cecil, and talking drivelling nonsense on CP&S.
    We are all almost certainly Hell-bound, according to several well-connected people on here. …Maybe. God (or Allah) knows.
    But seriously, (not really!) we all “classify” things according to our individual, almost invariably, inherited prejudices. So, a gay Catholic priest will see things very differently to a straight Mormon elder, or an insane Muslim cleric. Or a dopey Agnostic.
    Yes, it all depends on the individual. As always.
    And so on. And so on.
    Ad Infinitum.

  13. toadspittle says:

    “Eve was created from rib taken from Adam they are, therefore, one body.”
    But, Rogebert – if it was Steve who was was created by a rib taken from Adam – wouldn’t that make the pair of them even more of one body?

    “Sodom was punished by an Act of God and sodomy takes it name from Sodom. “
    Ah, excellent. Wondering why it’s called that, has been bothering Toad for years – up ’til now.

  14. Michael says:

    John,

    Seeing as you brought this issue of seemingly different treatments of homosexuality and masturbation on another thread, I’m just going to copy and paste the answer I gave you there (the first line is a quotation from your own previous comment on that thread):

    ‘But no such consideration is accorded in the Catechism to homosexual acts or persons

    Neither is any extra qualification given to other acts, such as fornication or the use of pornography, but I think that, given that all the statements in this section of the Catechism are made in the context of the universal call to chastity, it would be a fair assumption to make that the qualifications made re the statement on masturbation are not limited to that particular act. Furthermore, as you have pointed out yourself on many occasions, the statements on homosexuality are themselves accompanied by several qualifications which exhort us to treat homosexual persons with respect, compassion, etc – yet I do not imagine that we are to set these things aside when dealing with people who struggle with other sexual sins.’

    As for the removal of the line in the Catechism about homosexuals not choosing their condition, has it ever occurred to you that the more likely explanation for this is that the removal was due to its being an unnecessary addition in the first place that was not present in the original Latin text, as opposed to a backtracking from something originally intended by the authors of the Catechism?

  15. toadspittle says:

    “You can’t pervert something that is naturally there.”
    Utterly idiotic statement – as the most illiberal Catholic on CP&S (not Toad) will agree.
    …What else can be perverted, except what’s naturally there? Or else, what’s porn about?

    “People also have more gay sex in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex around, like prison.”
    What a blinding revelation! Of course they do. Because sex is the most important thing in the world. (or maybe, the least unimportant) – to most people of any religion. Or of none.

  16. If it is possible to say, as you argue, that the express qualifications on masturbation in paragraph 2352 of the CCC could be implicitly applied to other sins against chastity that would be fine but why should we have to infer that ? Would it not have been easier, and much clearer, to say so generally and clearly in a separate paragraph ? As a stand-alone qualification in paragraph 2352 we have to do a bit of theological stretching to extend it to homosexuality, particularly when the mystery of the disappearance of a sentence from paragraph 2358 remains. Any more than you, I cannot figure out how the sentence came and went but I find it difficult to imagine how a translator from Latin, whose function is precise, would fabricate a text. I think the removal of the sentence is significant, not just an unnecessary addition now removed.

  17. dfxc says:

    Well yes, toad, sin — but I meant, as John took it and ran with it, specifically with regard to the Catechism, the precise (contra-)nature of the sinfulness of the act, and whether, on those grounds, homosexual acts were necessarily different from other sins of ‘disordered affection.’ [John and Michael both offered good food for thought and I’ll need some time for research before I form my own outlook.] My (apparently in need of being made explicit) appeal to the Magisterium was meant to avoid the subjectivity you note at the end of your reply and, instead, seek out the ‘party line’ as it were. [Though, in a casual, day to day sense, yeah, I take your point and for the most part agree with it.]
    Since the original post was critiquing (in title and in part) the presumed “immutable” quality of homosexual attraction, what spurred my question was the possibility of it being no less “immutable” or “inherent” or “in-born” than, say, St. Augustine’s notorious (and confessed) inability to ‘keep it in his robe’.
    And, as I said, I’m only just starting this line of thought.
    Oh, and thank you, I find “dfxc” rather aesthetically pleasing myself. If you’re genuinely interested in its origin and meaning, have a look at my blog post entitled, “On the Name.”

  18. dfxc says:

    toad, this is compeletly off-topic but, given what I’ve read of you on CP&S, I’m quite curious to know: What’s your interpretation of Mk. 14:51-52?

  19. johnhenrycn says:

    Robert, they recently discovered a human tooth – in France – they say is 550,000 years old. I don’t know if it was a Adam’s or Eve’s. Thought you might be interested:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/rare-tooth-of-human-ancestor-found-in-france-1.3170670
    One thing about you is that you’re more faithful to the Church than a old bloodhound to his master. Long may you prosper.

  20. toadspittle says:

    I’m afraid I’ll have to look that up, DFXC – and get back to you, ASAP. (That will tell you something to be getting on with. My first thought was it was a kind of gun.)

  21. toadspittle says:

    “Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity.”
    I think not – if there was found to be a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, then behaving in a homosexual fashion would be the natural thing to do, for those born with it, surely?
    Such people would be designed in the womb to be gay. Though “designated” is the more appropriate word.

  22. toadspittle says:

    Well, dfxc, – (or may we call you df, for short?) – Looked up Mk. 14:51-52, after Mass – on the WorldWideWeb and it’s either a variety of Chevy – or possibly a gospel account of a streaker. Either way, I’m afraid I can’t really help.
    I know nothing about cars, except that I don’t much care for them – and what I know about streaking isn’t really worth knowing.

    (Very thought-provoking link above, from JH, at 17.20 Aug 1, though.)

  23. Michael says:

    Would it not have been easier, and much clearer, to say so generally and clearly in a separate paragraph ?

    Perhaps yes, but the Catechism would be a great deal larger and certainly a great deal less readable if it insisted on repeating points it had already made with respect to particular sins over and over again. In this case, we already have statements made about the conditions expected of us regarding chastity in general, and in other sections (those dealing with the difference between mortal and venial sins) we have statements pertaining to how responsibility can be diminished by invincible ignorance, etc. There is no need to repeat these things again and again.

    The reason, I think, that a repeated emphasis is provided here, and accompanies the statement on masturbation but not homosexuality, is that the former is something that has affected most all people at some point in their life (as opposed to the other acts in the list which have and/or do not), and so it is appropriate that qualifications about habit, psychological factors, etc are mentioned here. It should also be noted that, as the first in the list of ‘offences against chastity’ it is appropriate that any statements which could be applied to other acts be mentioned here, at the outset.

    Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, homosexuality receives a special section all of its own, where three paragraphs are devoted to making clear both the disordered nature of such acts, as well as the need to treat people with a desire for those acts with respect and sensitivity – so it is not as if the topic has been sidelined or not given due attention. In fact, one could apply your argument in the other direction and ask why the other acts on the list are not given as much space as homosexuality is.

    As to the removal of the sentence from paragraph 2358 from the earlier English language editions of the Catechism, there is no way of being absolutely sure as to the precise order of events, motivations, etc, so we will probably just have to agree to disagree as to the most plausible explanation. But I found a couple of links you may find interesting/helpful:

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2LAETM.HTM

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/CCHISM.HTM

    The first, an Apostolic Letter issued by John Paul II when the official Latin edition was promulgated, gives some idea of the process by which different national and local groups were consulted on correcting translations from the original French*, and the second, written shortly after that first French document was released, and some preliminary English translations were being prepared, gives some idea of just how many issues there were that needed correcting, including many unnecessary additions to the original text (although it doesn’t specifically mention para. 2358).

    Also, you might find this book of interest:

    https://books.google.co.uk/ebooks?id=U9IPGI1-sbkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

    It gives a lot of background on the history and writing of the Catechism, as well as the reasons behind its particular structure and its intended role within the universal Church.

    *My mistake here – earlier I gave the impression that the original document, from which the English translations were made, was in Latin, but this was not the case. The Latin document which was finally promulgated in 1997 remains the official text though, which is a good reminder that, regardless of what we think about the processes involved here, this is what we must have recourse to when discussing the Church’s official position on any given topic.

  24. Michael says:

    Hmm, I see what you’re getting at here, but I think there is a significant difference between a ‘predisposition’ and a pre-determination. Personally, I am pretty sceptical about the idea that we can be genetically predisposed towards any kind of behaviour or inclination towards certain kinds of behaviour – the most one could say in such cases is that maybe because of our genetic makeup one might produce more of certain hormones than is normal for a man or woman, and that this might be a factor in how we develop.

    At any rate, my point is that, whilst we are determined to have a particular eye or hair colour or something like that by our genes, the way we behave, what sort of personality we have, what things we prefer, etc, is at best a complex mixture of nature and nurture, but more likely leans much more towards the nurture end of things. I find it very hard to believe that these latter kinds of things can be reduced to mere biological inheritance.

    If it were (hypothetically speaking)possible to show that there was some kind of genetic trait that had such an influence on behaviour though, I don’t think this would automatically make the expression of that behaviour natural. After all, people are born with all kinds of purely biological flaws, disabilities, etc, but we do not see these as being the natural or normal state of affairs – we judge them to be out of step with the way things ‘normally’ are, without in any way condemning people who are born with such flaws or demeaning their status as human persons.

  25. kathleen says:

    This is a very well-informed and interesting comment, Michael. I have learnt a lot from you here – thank you!🙂

  26. kathleen says:

    Yes, another very good and insightful response from you.

    I am reminded of that excellent video Geoff linked us to about the testimony of a number of ‘reformed’ homosexuals (thanks to the loving grace of God) who completely turned their lives around after a period of struggle, repentance and final pure determination. Remember it?

    This proves that certainly in very many cases (not sure if all) the ‘choice’ to reject a distorted homosexual lifestyle is well within people’s possibility. Yet it will often take an enormous amount of humility, a strong will, and firm faith in God to succeed.

  27. If instead of attaching the mitigating circumstances to paragraph 2352 alone they were omitted in that paragraph and made a separate paragraph within that section [ 11. The Vocation to Chastity] ‘Applying to each sin within this Section’ the Catechism would not have been a ‘good deal larger’ and ‘certainly a great deal less readable’. It would have been achieved by the addition of a mere seven extra words. The mitigating circumstances would not have to be repeated over and over again but this would show that, inter alia, those mitigating circumstances apply equally to homosexual acts.

  28. toadspittle says:

    Yes, Michael, very good answer, with which I very largely agree.
    I have no idea why some people find their own sex sexually attractive. I don’t myself, and never have. So it is a puzzler. The big question is – why God should allow for this kind of “inclination,” in some humans – (surprisingly many, it seems, since laws have changed and they’ve “come out”) if it’s gravely, intrinsically, disordered and unnatural – or whatever… Always assuming that’s what He has done.
    An apparent flaw in the basic Intelligent Design, it also seems. But there’s no answer to that.’… ….Mysterious Ways… the metaphysical Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. For an intelligently-designed planet, lovingly made by Him for our personal benefit, there seems a hell of a lot that functions decidedly unintelligently – “randomly,” we might even assume. Yes, earthquakes,and malaria, for example.(Yawn.) Not again, Toad!

  29. Michael says:

    Thank you Kathleen – very much! Glad that some good has come out of this whole back and forth over what is and isn’t in the Catechism🙂

  30. Michael says:

    If instead of attaching the mitigating circumstances to paragraph 2352 alone they were omitted in that paragraph and made a separate paragraph within that section…

    Yes John, I know what you mean – I see your point, I really do. All I am saying is that, given that this didn’t happen, there is more than enough provided elsewhere in the Catechism (and in Catholic teaching on personal culpability, etc in general) to allow us to apply these words to homosexuality.

    Why it was decided not to put a paragraph in such as you suggest I don’t know (though personally I think my line of thinking fairly likely), but that’s the way it is, and I really don’t think that it is legitimate to see this as grounds for thinking that the authors somehow discriminated against homosexuality in the list of sins against chastity, especially when three paragraphs were devoted to it (compared to one each for the other sins).

    P.S. I hope you find those links helpful.

  31. Michael says:

    Thanks again Kathleen! And yes, I do remember that video, which I personally found really moving (particularly the peace that the people in it had found after they were given the courage to say ‘no’ to what our culture tells them they must do – which had actually only made them miserable – and ‘yes’ to the path that they are told – also by our culture – can only lead to heartache). Thanks again to Geoff for finding that one!

  32. Michael says:

    Thank you Toad. Yes, that larger question is the ‘big’ one isn’t it, but as you allude to in your comment, it is also something that has been gone over many times here already, so I’ll just treat it as ‘off topic’ for now I think🙂

    One thing I will say though is that the ‘mysterious ways’ argument is not a cop-out – it is the very nature of the case, given that we are finite and limited in knowledge (not only potential knowledge but what it is possible for us to ever get our heads around even if we were to live for ever and uncover every stone in the universe), that a lot of God’s ways will remain mysterious to us, and so it is I think a perfectly natural thing to maintain that the whys and whatfors of the creation of the entire universe is something that we will certainly never know all the answers to. So, recognising this, and having plenty of good reasons to believe in God’s essential goodness, I think it is perfectly reasonable to bear with the mystery and remain hopeful overall.

  33. Michael, If general Church teaching is sufficient to deal with issues of personal moral culpability why were the specific extenuating circumstances in paragraph 2352, relating to masturbation,included there at all ? Why not omit them entirely from paragraph 2352 ?

  34. Brother Burrito says:

    Mystery is a wonderful thing for it can make any one of us into that most marvellous of creatures: a fascinated infant.

    I saw such a child this afternoon at Mass. She bore an amazing resemblance to my youngest daughter at that age (about 18 months I guess). Both her parents were in wheelchairs. Maybe she thought they were in buggies like her own?

    Throughout the whole Mass, she never whimpered but watched attentively, smiled and waved, fully enjoying the “show”.

  35. Brother Burrito says:

    This is a comment to all of you in general, and nobody in particular. We have no formal moderation rules here, but if we the owners of the site consider a commenter is hogging the blog or becoming boring and monomaniacal, we reserve the right to put that person’s comments back into the “pre-moderation” queue.

    This slows them down as they have to await one of us to approve their comment, if one can be bothered. If they persist, and start to waste our time, they get marked as a spammer, never to be seen again. Ask Toad, this happened to him by mistake. He didn’t enjoy it.

    BB
    (Blog Enforcer)

  36. Michael says:

    John,

    I really don’t know what else to say here that I didn’t already say in my last response (not to mention the other responses I’ve given to your comments on this topic). Sorry, but I have to hold up my hands and give up now – it’s all starting to feel a bit circular again.

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    Hey!!
    That aside, does anyone know a 5 letter word that rhymes with “keyhole”. I’m stumped by a crossword from a back issue of the TLS.

  38. Brother Burrito says:

    Creole?

    That aside JH, I’ve got my beady eye on you and all the other troublemakers.

    Grrrrr!

  39. Brother Burrito says:

    Duh, 6 letters.

    Seoul?

  40. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad says: “I have no idea why some people find their own sex sexually attractive. I don’t myself, and never have.

    Although accepting the truth of the second half of your comment, that in no way proves that adolescents who do experience same sex attractions are in any way queer. I send you this from atop my stone pillar.

  41. johnhenrycn says:

    Thanks! That’s exactly the name that fits !!. Don’t know why I couldn’t think of it on my own.

  42. toadspittle says:

    ….But he accepted it humbly, Bro Burronissimo. And did not cavil.
    (Actually, it was almost as much a relief for him, as it was for everyone else.)

  43. Brother Burrito says:

    My pleasure, as long as you don’t make a Korea out of it.

  44. johnhenrycn says:

    …sayeth our favourite 5 watt bulb. Such a dim wattage doesn’t exist over here, except in Washington DC and Toledo OH.

  45. kathleen says:

    Oh, Burrito, don’t call our JH a “troublemaker”… perhaps just a bit of a “mischief”! He’s really such fun, and one of the damsel-in-distress’s gallant defenders when the trolls attack.😉

  46. Robert says:

    John Henry The New Scientist says that the human brain has shown no signs of Evolution in 30,000 years. The BBC expotentional graph on human population drops below 1 million after 2,500 or so years.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/population/population_change_structure_rev1.shtml
    But that is not the point.
    The real point is calling the Holy Ghost a liar since we are talking of I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
    Apostles CREED
    I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
    and born of the Virgin Mary.
    He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
    He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
    He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
    Amen.
    “This creed is considered to be a faithful summary of the Apostles’ teaching” That is from Our Lord and the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

    Notice conceived by the Holy Ghost (where is the Holy Ghost’s genes?). What about “Resurrected Body” presumable the body has genes? Now is the Body of Christ genetically the same as Every Man? Because Evolution postulates that you are materially different from your parents.

    Notice SINS and the forgiveness of SINS. Was Sodomy classed and considered as a SIN by the Apostolic Church?

    It comes down simply to Original Sin (Adam and Eve) and the Passion (Jesus and Mary).
    You have Free Will and if you choose to be the children of Apes so be it, Satan is God’s Ape. However the Child Of Mary has God for their Father hence the Lords Prayer.
    Evolution is causality pure materialism and needs No Heaven and No Hell. Has no Soul nor needs none nor no spirit nor needs one.
    With Evolution there can be NO SIN its just the genes isn’t it?
    Free Will and choice of parentage Ape of God?

  47. johnhenrycn says:

    I no longer wish to scorn your fervent belief, Robert, but can’t resist asking this: when you cite, with apparent approval, The New Scientist contention that “…the human brain has shown no signs of Evolution (sic…your capitalization – not mine – as if you accept the Darwinian principle of Evolution) in 30,000 years”, what are you telling us when you compare that to Bishop Challoner’s timeline set forth in his revised version (c. 1749-52) of Douay-Rheims, that says Adam was created by God less than 5000 years ago?

  48. johnhenrycn says:

    …as I recently challenged your semi-creationist fellow traveller, Geoff Kiernan, in relation to another issue, please SOGOTP.

    (Geoff still hasn’t thought to ask any of his grandchildren what that acronym means.)

  49. toadspittle says:

    A kindly thought, JH. Possibly in 30,000 years or so, Toad will be a bright as a Canadian lawyer.

  50. johnhenrycn says:

    So sweet, Kathleen. You, Gertrude, MMVC and GC are the love of my blog life:

    Signed, Casanova.

  51. GC says:

    Sheol?

    You’re welcome.

  52. johnhenrycn says:

    Sorry, GC. Very witty, but Sheol is 9 down. Seoul is 3 across, which is what I needed.
    ___
    BB: Your “Korea” pun (20:58) is offensive to the children of the rebels who bravely fought in the Irish War of Independence – received pronunciation being their only serious grievance. You are Irish and ought not to make fun of your cousins. Or siblings. Or parents.

  53. johnhenrycn says:

    Speaking of women, and at the risk of being put into pre-moderation, here’s another Ricky Nelson song:Mary Lou
    the Christian name of the Kempenfelt Bay Ice Carnival Queen in 1969 who I had a crush on, but who made up an excuse about having to pluck her eyebrows when I asked for a date back then. Little did she know how important I might be in her life 40+ years later: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2014/2014ONCA0083.pdf.
    Karma. Good night.

  54. johnhenrycn says:

    Can’t understand why people like you are so smitten with Sinatra. The blogs are full this year (the centenary of his birth) with that Mafia flirt. Basie, otoh, like Oscar Peterson is a man of the ages:

  55. johnhenrycn says:

    …and at least: my off topic video is made available for your viewing pleasure.

  56. Robert says:

    John Henry I am not making or attempting to as it were score points. As you will know there is a difference in the lives of the patriachs between the martyrology and the vulgate. Sic the Masoretic bible and the Septuagint.
    But the point is that so called scientific proof has a habit of being proven to be speculative theory. Sic the Big Bang this is what they say, the Laws of Physics breakdown (that’s right don’t apply) during the Big Bang/ Black Holes.
    The graph shows less than 1 million humans on the entire planet 500 BC! I wonder what the Ape population was at that time? I wonder what the human distribution was over the planet? Freaks tend not to survive, so how long will a hairless ape survive with a decade dependency on its mother?
    Hitler and his belief in the Aryan race (that’s pure Evolution). But the Apostles made no distinction between race, colour treated ALL as children of the Father. The Nations are traced to Babel and Nations mean differentials between peoples.
    Fire from Heaven fell on Sodom!! because of this SIN.
    As I say free will if you choose an Ape for your Father so be it but that is choosing a beast before God.
    I choose God the Father. Whom created Adam and from adams rib created Eve they are one flesh! This accords with what Our Lord said of marriage!
    Science has no answers to Christ miracles. Science has no answer to bilocution, the dance of the Sun (Fatima).

  57. dfxc says:

    “haec propensio” would be the clause in the final Latin…
    Meanwhile, I’ve got to come down on Michael’s side here with regard to mitigation of responsibility–especially considering how often those clauses come up in the CIC. If a freely and publicly chosen *sacrament* can be voided by immaturity and ignorance, it’s hard to justify holding a private act of concupiscence fueled by a “propensio” to a higher standard.

  58. dfxc says:

    Actually, ‘Is that a gun or a Chevy?’ is a pretty great answer in my book.

  59. dfxc says:

    Can you flip your question around and answer it? That is, why would it be right that mitigation *not* apply to homosexual acts?
    Or is this just a philological question for you (in which case the answers are in the original French, the final Latin, and the particular problem of rendering “propensio” in English in a way that *most* Anglophones will understand)?

  60. dfxc says:

    (That’s directed at John, not Michael)

  61. dfxc says:

    Sorry, I’m new around here. Is your perspective meant to be Catholic or late American Protestant?

  62. Robert says:

    Aquinas!! His excellent Lenten sermons on Apostles Creed.
    The distinction between Creator and maker!

    Human intelligence without Faith “they do not believe there was any nature besides that of sensible bodies” Do you not see they have deified (they worship) the world that they perceive is ruled by what they have observed! They imagine and have deified the stars to be their gods that rule the world” Man is made from stardust.
    This whole generation has been seduced by the world (science) the flesh (beastility, lust and perversity) and the devil.
    To reject the Creator and His Creation is to return to the pagan world conquered by Christ.
    For 2000 years these Truth’s have been defended by Catholics. Saints have given their lives for these Truths.

  63. toadspittle says:

    “As I say free will if you choose an Ape for your Father so be it but that is choosing a beast before God.”
    Religion by Robert.
    In a nutshell.
    Where it belongs.

  64. Robert says:

    John Henry read Aquinas
    http://www.allacronyms.com/_internet_slang/SOGOTP
    It is what comes out of Man that reveals the state of His Soul.
    Man left to His intelligence ends up denying God. Today children are raised and taught to deny their Creator.
    The Apostles Creed
    The first article of Faith is that the faithful must believe in one god.
    Aquinas errors concerning Creation
    The error of those who say the world has existed from eternity.
    The error of those who asserted that God made the world from pre-existing matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s