This may come off as splitting hairs to some but specifically what the Catholic Church considers to be disordered are homosexual acts. Merely experiencing same-sex attraction is not considered to be sinful according to the CC.
What about sexual desire for a man who is not your wife?
Personally I have not kept totally up to date on the Catholic Church's moral pronouncements. As an institution, the only thing that can now redeem it is seppuku.
What are you confused about? Men can be women. Women can be men. Thus men can be wives and women can be husbands. This is in the catechism of the church of woke.
I’ve got another one too — what if a man has a wife and the only way he can be aroused enough to have sex with her is if he fantasizes about men? Thus every time the man has sex with his wife he must fantasize about sexual acts with men. Disordered or ordered according to the catechism of Catholic Church?
I have a hypothesis that celibacy emerged as a virtue for priests from the painful and resentful depths of self-hating and self-ignorant gay men. Or bitterly envious losers. The two top competing hypotheses for the formation of the catholic priesthood.
The man who can only get aroused enough to have sex with his wife if he fantasizes about men probably should never have gotten married. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But yes, sexual acts (including fantasies) that don't take place within marriage & are ordered to procreation would be considered disordered by the Catholic Church. So basically most human beings, whatever their sexual orientation, fall foul of Church teaching.
Why are you so hostile to celibacy? Any why would you presume that a desire to live a celibate life could only come from resentful self-hating, "self-ignorant" gay men? Or that celibacy is a consequence of someone being a "bitterly envious" loser? Can you really not imagine that there could be people in the world that are not like you AND are also decent? Or is it your habit to judge people you don't know or understand?
A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
The reason the Catholic Church okayed desire but not the actual acts was because they were worried the transgender males would get pregnant now that they identified as women; plus since abortion was frowned upon they didn’t want the newly identified woman to experience that as well. The issue of women who have a penis and an abortion is much under reported but a national tragedy nonetheless by the Catholic Church.
What? You deny that people who were born biologically male but have since transitioned to identify as as a woman can’t get pregnant?! How very bigoted and narrow of you.
This may come off as splitting hairs to some but specifically what the Catholic Church considers to be disordered are homosexual acts. Merely experiencing same-sex attraction is not considered to be sinful according to the CC.
What about sexual desire for a man who is not your wife?
Personally I have not kept totally up to date on the Catholic Church's moral pronouncements. As an institution, the only thing that can now redeem it is seppuku.
A man who is not your wife?
What are you confused about? Men can be women. Women can be men. Thus men can be wives and women can be husbands. This is in the catechism of the church of woke.
I’ve got another one too — what if a man has a wife and the only way he can be aroused enough to have sex with her is if he fantasizes about men? Thus every time the man has sex with his wife he must fantasize about sexual acts with men. Disordered or ordered according to the catechism of Catholic Church?
I have a hypothesis that celibacy emerged as a virtue for priests from the painful and resentful depths of self-hating and self-ignorant gay men. Or bitterly envious losers. The two top competing hypotheses for the formation of the catholic priesthood.
The man who can only get aroused enough to have sex with his wife if he fantasizes about men probably should never have gotten married. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But yes, sexual acts (including fantasies) that don't take place within marriage & are ordered to procreation would be considered disordered by the Catholic Church. So basically most human beings, whatever their sexual orientation, fall foul of Church teaching.
Why are you so hostile to celibacy? Any why would you presume that a desire to live a celibate life could only come from resentful self-hating, "self-ignorant" gay men? Or that celibacy is a consequence of someone being a "bitterly envious" loser? Can you really not imagine that there could be people in the world that are not like you AND are also decent? Or is it your habit to judge people you don't know or understand?
A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
The reason the Catholic Church okayed desire but not the actual acts was because they were worried the transgender males would get pregnant now that they identified as women; plus since abortion was frowned upon they didn’t want the newly identified woman to experience that as well. The issue of women who have a penis and an abortion is much under reported but a national tragedy nonetheless by the Catholic Church.
You've nailed it yet again.
What? You deny that people who were born biologically male but have since transitioned to identify as as a woman can’t get pregnant?! How very bigoted and narrow of you.
That is actually a very important point.
Can you elaborate on this? It seems sort of vague.
I may be restricted in my thinking but I’m certain CJ is referring to comedy acts that life is entirely based on.