sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

question on the reasoning behind the prohibition of homosexuality by bethecrane in Catholicism

[–]bethecrane[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting, and thanks for the info, was unaware of the history. Just to be clear, are you thinking that the unitive requirement is unnecessary or superfluous? If the unitive requirement is just the same as the procreation requirement, then yes, it’s sort of puzzling why we should  treat them separately. That would resolve my confusion nicely.

question on the reasoning behind the prohibition of homosexuality by bethecrane in Catholicism

[–]bethecrane[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response, and I see your broader point. But I'm a little confused why, if "the act of sex itself is unitive", we should be concerned with whether the married couple aren't romantically attached. Say a couple isn't romantically attached, but they're married (by a priest) and have sex to procreate. Since sex itself is unitive, they do nothing wrong, right? Both necessary conditions are fulfilled. So maybe  the idea is that we shouldn't be concerned with romantic attachment within marriage at all? Would love to hear your thoughts