3 ms·

Can you be specific? I anticipate that the people you are thinking of are heretics. I mean specifically that they deviate from dogmas of the church, not any col

Can you be specific? I anticipate that the people you are thinking of are heretics. I mean specifically that they deviate from dogmas of the church, not any colloquial definition.

ijasidfjiajsdf 5y ago
Some Catholic priests and parishes are considerably more "progressive" than others. Every major city has at least one progressive parish, often it can be the Jesuit parish. Catholic teaching is quite strict that the purpose of sex is "bonding and babies." (More formally, sex is "unitive, marital, and procreative.") The progressive priests and bishops don't blatantly contradict this, but they do stress how "welcoming and inclusive" they are to practitioners of sexual acts that are neither unitive, marital, nor procreative, while never choosing to preach any homilies about God creating sex for the purpose of strengthening the bond between husband and wife and to enable the two to "be fruitful and multiply."
- trasz 5y ago
  This is true in certain places, but far from universal. I'd be quite surprised if you found such progressive priests in Poland, for example. The official Catholic stance - essentially "teaching" people are no different from cattle, sexuality-wise - seems to be enforced very heavily there.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    “The official Catholic stance - essentially "teaching" people are no different from cattle, sexuality-wise - seems to be enforced very heavily there.” This is a straw man assertion…
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    What's with your condescension? It's horrible. The Catholic position is grounded in natural law theory. The telos of the sexual organs is essentially procreative; deny the procreative end and sex becomes incomprehensible. To use sexual organs in a manner that _intentionally_ works against their end is to intentionally frustrate their end. To intentionally thwart the operation of your faculties and misuse them is immoral and therefore contradicts one's fulfillment and actualization as a human being. Calling people cattle for living in accordance with the procreative end of sexual intercourse, which is the ultimate end of sexual intercourse, is nasty, if not irrational. Before you do so, I suggest you acquaint yourself[0] with the actual position held and defended by the Catholic Church. [0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/lets-think-about-sex https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/lets-think-a...
    - gammarator 5y ago
      This is the naturalistic fallacy.
  - javagram 5y ago
    > The official Catholic stance - essentially "teaching" people are no different from cattle, sexuality-wise The church is perfectly fine with promiscuity, artificial insemination, sterilization etc. among cattle or pets. The same behaviors they tell humans are immoral, because they think humans aren’t just cattle.
    - trasz 5y ago
      They consider them immoral, because humans, like cattle, have no right to decide for themselves.

Can you be specific? I anticipate that the people you are thinking of are heretics. I mean specifically that they deviate from dogmas of the church, not any colloquial definition.

ijasidfjiajsdf 5y ago

Some Catholic priests and parishes are considerably more "progressive" than others. Every major city has at least one progressive parish, often it can be the Jesuit parish. Catholic teaching is quite strict that the purpose of sex is "bonding and babies." (More formally, sex is "unitive, marital, and procreative.") The progressive priests and bishops don't blatantly contradict this, but they do stress how "welcoming and inclusive" they are to practitioners of sexual acts that are neither unitive, marital, nor procreative, while never choosing to preach any homilies about God creating sex for the purpose of strengthening the bond between husband and wife and to enable the two to "be fruitful and multiply."

trasz 5y ago
This is true in certain places, but far from universal. I'd be quite surprised if you found such progressive priests in Poland, for example. The official Catholic stance - essentially "teaching" people are no different from cattle, sexuality-wise - seems to be enforced very heavily there.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  “The official Catholic stance - essentially "teaching" people are no different from cattle, sexuality-wise - seems to be enforced very heavily there.” This is a straw man assertion…
- bobthechef 5y ago
  What's with your condescension? It's horrible. The Catholic position is grounded in natural law theory. The telos of the sexual organs is essentially procreative; deny the procreative end and sex becomes incomprehensible. To use sexual organs in a manner that _intentionally_ works against their end is to intentionally frustrate their end. To intentionally thwart the operation of your faculties and misuse them is immoral and therefore contradicts one's fulfillment and actualization as a human being. Calling people cattle for living in accordance with the procreative end of sexual intercourse, which is the ultimate end of sexual intercourse, is nasty, if not irrational. Before you do so, I suggest you acquaint yourself[0] with the actual position held and defended by the Catholic Church. [0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/lets-think-about-sex https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/lets-think-a...
  - gammarator 5y ago
    This is the naturalistic fallacy.
- javagram 5y ago
  > The official Catholic stance - essentially "teaching" people are no different from cattle, sexuality-wise The church is perfectly fine with promiscuity, artificial insemination, sterilization etc. among cattle or pets. The same behaviors they tell humans are immoral, because they think humans aren’t just cattle.
  - trasz 5y ago
    They consider them immoral, because humans, like cattle, have no right to decide for themselves.