mardi 16 août 2011

"You-Cat"? No-Cat-But-A-Weasel

I am just reading an appeal to recall the You-Cat (Youth Catechism) being distributed in Madrid. I am thus quoting through its quotes:

Question 65 of YOUCAT explains:

There is no man on earth who is not descended from a union of a mother and father. Therefore it is a painful experience for many homosexually oriented people that they do not feel erotically attracted to the opposite sex and necessarily miss out on the physical fruitfulness of the union between man and woman according to human nature and the divine order of creation. Nevertheless, God often leads souls to himself along unusual paths: A lack, a loss, or a wound—if accepted and affirmed—can become a springboard for throwing oneself into the arms of God…


Very obviously - I find it obvious unlike those who wrote petition - it is a question of a mental attraction to the same sex, and not of acts of sodomy or even internal acts of desire of sodomy. However, I have my own axe to grind with that attitude.

Therefore it is a painful experience for many homosexually oriented people that they do not feel erotically attracted to the opposite sex and necessarily miss out on the physical fruitfulness of the union between man and woman according to human nature and the divine order of creation.


What idiotic nonsense. It is not by necessity, but by preferring their attractions to fertility and marriage that they - often but not always - miss out on the physical fruitfulness. There are more reasons than one - like homosexuality being one, but fatigue and therefore "not-feeling-sexy" another or oversexedness and therefore feeling attracted to every pretty unmarried person of opposite sex a third and disappointments from previous rejected proposals a fourth - of not feeling constantly and exclusively very sexually attracted to any one particular person of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, as the Church never said that feeling on top of your form and being very attracted to your wife was a condition for staying validly married or for marrying at all, she never said that homosexual orientation was an obstacle to marriage.

Except of course if a man cannot at all erect in presence of a woman but not through physical erectile dysfunction. But that would usually have been seen as "homosexual orientation" but as a spell or other demonic influence. Actually, what St Paul writing to the Romans said about it is that preference for unnatural intercourse came about among Pagans as a punisment for idolatry. Even without the incapacity for intercourse with a wife. So much more that such incapacity must come from the demon, where it exists (if it exists at all). Perhaps Jews (and some other machoist cultures too) would have counted that as an orientation, or they may have higher demands on purely physical attraction to a woman on part of a man before he can be allowed to marry her. They are also more open to slander about the possible sodomitic inclinations of unmarried persons than the Church.

But to the mind of the Church, what is considered "homosexual orientation" is not necessarily an obstacle to marriage. Any more than fatigue, or insecurity about what person in opposite sex one loves most, or feeling sure to get rejected.

Nevertheless, God often leads souls to himself along unusual paths: A lack, a loss, or a wound—if accepted and affirmed—can become a springboard for throwing oneself into the arms of God…


Here is poison. Vile poison. How many priests have heard some rumour (oh, not from macho blokes on the building block, whom they would not listen to but like from a rabbi or a psychologist or a policeman or a teacher or other representative for an altoogether too judaised elite culture) that someone is a homosexual, when in fact he is not, when in fact he wants very much to marry, and how many of them have dissuaded girl after girl from marrying that man, and how many have then persuaded themselves that they are only helping God to lead a soul to himself along unusual paths? I do not contest the theological fact that God can do that, I am saying this context is the wrongest possible place to bring this up time after time and even in a catechism. And such killers of souls are sure in their hearts they are being scientific and doing the right thing by a person by the lights of scientific truth.

More will come on "scientific truth" or supposed such. Suffice it to say:

- not being very attracted to one's wife happens for other reasons than homosexuality and in most marriages at times
- it neither precludes or necessarily ruins marriage, nor makes it unfertile
- if a homosexual orientation makes a man feel he would do wrong to marry someone without telling her, let him tell her and say how she feels about it. After all, there are lesbians who have the same trouble with men.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beauvais
16-VIII-2011

3 commentaires:

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

www.youcatrecall.com is source of quotes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

According to the site, CCC contains exactly same error:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states of homosexuality:

Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. 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… Homosexual persons are called to chastity. (10)


Understood is of course perfect chastity as in complete abstinence, not conjugal chastity as in getting off sodomy and on to real Christian matrimony. Otherwise the phrase "called to" makes very little sense.

It is an obstacle for homosexuals who get the impression that unless they can remake their minds they cannot make a Christian marriage, and it is of course a double obstacle for those unjustly stamped as homosexuals. A heterosexual person should not have to submit to a choice between therapy to change sexuality or otherwise total abstinence, just because someone stamped him (or maybe her) as a homosexual and someone else believed the eejit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

part 2