A staggering symptom of this, to me, was the comment from bufo_viridis [...] To my statement that homosexual practice inevitably narrowed people, he answered "I would be interested to hear how" - implying, one, that he had never come across a motivated statement of this viewpoint, and, two, that he found it hard to understand. To which I can only say, where have you been? Which part of "I am a Catholic" do you not understand? Have you not heard the screeching of the media when a Vatican document, hedged about with a million caveats, said that it was not a good idea to consecrate homosexuals to the priesthood? Do you not know that the Catholic Church has taught from time out of mind that homosexual desire is disordered and homosexual acts sinful?[...]Have I not written an essay on the Catholic view of the sexes within man, and of the union of the sexes as an image of God on Earth?
First, thank you for compliments, I'm flattered.
Second it's obvious I need to clarify. I confess to skim rather than thoroughly read the previous post; I become interested in the the phrase "a condition that inevitably impoverishes the experience and narrows the humanity of its practicitioners", because I personally do not perceive this "inevitability" especially in the matter of "humanity", although I agree that due to many reasons it may indeed happen. How often I'm unable to say. My experience with homosexuals is limited to the extreme, never known any, and I always treaded lightly around the subject, lest my ignorance offends anybody.
The phrasing of my comment - too curt - was unfortunate, appearing as if I was to pick a quarrell, rather than ask out of genuine curiosity. Actually, the equally curt answer "because of my Catholic views" would suffice; yet because I don't think you a person who'd accept a dogma before thinking it over, I preferred to ask (I was not aware, or I had forgotten, about your essay: it was posted before I started using my L-J).
As I said once (when discussing the unfortuante incident of the gay student and angry teacher in avus journal), being from a Catholic country is not sufficient in learning about why the Church is so opposed to the homosexual act (and I was not interested more than to pick the Catechism and read the relevant passages, which are rather short). That was also a reason for my question - namely if you referred me back to the Church I'd knew I have to look there for answers if I want to educate myself more. If there were other reasons, your own thoughts - well some of them are here and more I'll find in the linked essay; therefore all clear and my question has been answered - thank you.
And so not appear as an example of "narrowness and un-frankness" of sex discussion: I am/was fully aware of the mechanics of anal intercourse, unpleasant fecal details included; and I was also curious if this was main reason or there were other ones (if it was only that, there would be a problem of lesbians; and there are other modes of homosexuals sex possible, none of course including regular peni-vaginal intercouse, for rather obvious reasons :)).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-29 10:45 pm (UTC)First, thank you for compliments, I'm flattered.
Second it's obvious I need to clarify. I confess to skim rather than thoroughly read the previous post; I become interested in the the phrase "a condition that inevitably impoverishes the experience and narrows the humanity of its practicitioners", because I personally do not perceive this "inevitability" especially in the matter of "humanity", although I agree that due to many reasons it may indeed happen. How often I'm unable to say. My experience with homosexuals is limited to the extreme, never known any, and I always treaded lightly around the subject, lest my ignorance offends anybody.
The phrasing of my comment - too curt - was unfortunate, appearing as if I was to pick a quarrell, rather than ask out of genuine curiosity. Actually, the equally curt answer "because of my Catholic views" would suffice; yet because I don't think you a person who'd accept a dogma before thinking it over, I preferred to ask (I was not aware, or I had forgotten, about your essay: it was posted before I started using my L-J).
As I said once (when discussing the unfortuante incident of the gay student and angry teacher in avus journal), being from a Catholic country is not sufficient in learning about why the Church is so opposed to the homosexual act (and I was not interested more than to pick the Catechism and read the relevant passages, which are rather short). That was also a reason for my question - namely if you referred me back to the Church I'd knew I have to look there for answers if I want to educate myself more. If there were other reasons, your own thoughts - well some of them are here and more I'll find in the linked essay; therefore all clear and my question has been answered - thank you.
And so not appear as an example of "narrowness and un-frankness" of sex discussion: I am/was fully aware of the mechanics of anal intercourse, unpleasant fecal details included; and I was also curious if this was main reason or there were other ones (if it was only that, there would be a problem of lesbians; and there are other modes of homosexuals sex possible, none of course including regular peni-vaginal intercouse, for rather obvious reasons :)).