Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Date: 10/20/02 08:41:33 AM

Name: Mo4

Email:

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homosexual sex and masturbation

Previous
Next
Reply
New Article
Main List

You must have missed this post?

It may be unnatural to interfere with the normal sleep-wake cycle when we use anesthesia during surgery, sleeping pills to induce sleep or amphetamines to stay awake for finals, but it is not intrinsically evil. It may be unnatural to interfere with the body's circadian rhythms by working graveyard shifts and sleeping during the day and to regulate this changed regimen pharmaceutically, but it's not intrinsically evil. It may be unnatural for weight trainers and atheletes to take synthetic steroids to strengthen muscles, and even illegal for olympians to do so, but it is not intrinsically evil. It may be unnatural to inhibit the body's hunger with appetitie suppressors, but it is not intrinsically evil. There are dozens upon dozens of examples where pharamaceutical regimens do NOT enhance bodily functions in a normal way but rather inhibit biological clocks, circadian rhythms, sleep-wake cycles and hormone metabolic cycles (such as regulate steroid levels to keep them at natural levels and not abnormally high levels or low), but they aren't intrinsically evil. But, for heuristic purposes, let's say some of the above examples are going against nature in a manner that is evil, still there is nothing that would give rise to a silly notion that they are so seriously evil that God would be so offended by our machinations as to want to be apart from us for Eternity. Regulation of fertility cyclicity, as a bilogical function, is not different just because it involves our generative faculties.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I'm still waiting for an example of a medication that a healthy person takes to break something that isn't broken, with the exception of contraceptives, of course.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Actually eating and drinking when one is not hungry or thirsty is a sin. They both fall under the sin of glutony. One of the seven deadly sins.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


It seems like openness to life and unitive goals for a relationship are good values. There are lots of good values. What makes meeting this or that value discovered in natural law very serious or not so serious. Even if one shares these values, what reasons are given by the Church to make attaining some values more important than others? For example, it seems like the natural law would reveal that eating is for nourishment and drinking is to stay hydrated. Why isn't it evil to eat when one is not really hungry or in need of food? Why isn't it perverted and sinful to drink when one isn't thirsty? Why are murder and masturbation both grave matters? Why is birth control a mortal sin and not a venial sin? Seriously.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Questions were asked below about these topics, and, presumably, why the Church condemns them.

In the case of homosexual sex, it's obvious that this cannot ever meet the criteria for openness to life, not in any act, nor in the relationship as a whole. Same goes for masturbation, which doesn't even satisfy any unitive aspect, but is entirely self-focused.

Note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes that masturbation needs to be considered in the context of one's development, and psychological state.

Other questions? Comments?


Powered By Bravenet