A Natural Law Demonstration of the Sinfulness of the Homosexual Act, in the Spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas

[Paul_Rimmer]

I’m producing this because the natural law page on homosexuality is becoming cumbersomely long and distracted. Nevertheless, here is my attempt to answer the question. Let me know what you think.

---

Objection 1: It seems as though homosexual activity is good, by natural law, for many animals practice it, and these exist in nature. Now, the Natural Law is rooted in the activity of nature, as the Philosopher compares with birds and beasts, as does Plato, when justifying his position on homosexual activity. Because of our better understanding of biology, it is clear that different animals practice homosexuality naturally, and so it is justified by the natural law.

Objection 2: Furthermore, what exists in the will as a desire must be toward a good. But those who are homosexual by natural disposition have the desire for homosexual activity, as an end. Since there exists a natural desire, then homosexual activity is, by natural law, a good act.

Objection 3: Because there is no well-defined purpose for the homosexual act, it cannot be directed toward a wicked end necessarily, and so must be morally neutral.

Objection 4: It cannot be denied that, in the context of a relationship between two men who engage in homosexual activity, love can be shown through the homosexual act. Since love can be shown through the act, then the act cannot be completely disordered, and so must be morally neutral.

On the Contrary, the Scriptures plainly say “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27). The actions of men between men and women between women is called “unseemly” and “against nature”, and so must be in violation of the natural law.

I answer that, any moral judgment on the basis of natural law considers the intent, the act, and the end. Every action and every desire exists toward a proper end, which is relative to the agent acting. If the act fails to achieve the end, if the intent of the act is toward a disordered end, or if the act itself is disordered (if it by its nature is disordered, or tends toward an end that is disordered) then the act within its context is against the natural law, and is unacceptable in practice.
Now we consider the sexual act, properly called the marital act. This act, in humans, tends toward the proper end, first, of producing children, and second, of encouraging the unity of two persons in the image of the Trinity. This end may fail either because of a physical evil, barrenness, or because of a moral evil, the distortion of the marital act in such a way where it cannot meet its proper end, for example, by rape.
Homosexual activity, by which we mean the attempt of the marital act between two persons of the same gender, cannot in any way produce children, and because of this impossibility, the first reason for the marital act, and for the sacrament and natural state of marriage, is impossible. This is because the act, whatever intent there may be, is disordered to the point of it being impossible to achieve its necessary end.
The marital act also has the end of unity and love, but not in any sort of unity and love, but one which is the image of the Triune God. The homosexual activity deals with two persons who have equivalent roles, of wife and husband or of husband and husband, or of wife and wife. This images a Trinity where the relations are interchangeable, in other words, a heresy of modalism. Because of this, the marital act practiced between two people of the same gender, however lovingly, is disordered, and by the natural law, is always and in each case wrong.

Reply Objection 1. That other animals, not made in the image of God, practice homosexual activity, or other activity, such as the slaying of their own children, does not justify that action in humans, whose acts are ordered both to a purely physical end, which is pleasure, and also to a higher end, which is connected to the Eternal Law (where the Natural Law arises) and the divine order. To reject the latter gives primacy to the former, which is pleasure, and violates the divine image of the human. The preservation of this Divine Image, with is the core of the human nature, is also the core of the Natural Law, and the end of all its prescriptions.

Reply Objection 2. There are three senses in which the word “homosexual” can be used. It can describe a natural disposition to the homosexual act, the desire to partake in that act, or the act itself. Since the disposition exists as a part of the biological order in some people, then that disposition is only a physical evil, and like barrenness, is morally neutral, and may be a source of spiritual strength, as the Apostle Paul says, “when I am weak, then I am strong”. The desire arises from the nature and in itself is connected only to a physical evil, but the act desired tends, as has been demonstrated in the answer, always toward a disordered end. So the act itself is always a moral evil.

Reply Objection 3. The chief end of the homosexual act is a good, but this is true for every act committed, for every desire is for a good. However, the moral nature of acts is not determined by the presence of good, but by the degree to which that good end has been disordered. Since the end of the homosexual act is always disordered, the homosexual act is always morally evil.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Reply Objection 4. As stated in Objection 3 and its reply, the homosexual act can tend toward love, and so will be bad, but not wholly bad. For example, lust after a married woman involves the desire for a relationship instituted by God, as well as for the beauty he made, though in a way that violates the unity the act establishes, and so is disordered. As such, it is evil, but not wholly evil; evil in the sense that it is not truly good.

 

[choy]

i agree with your reply to objection 1

a lot of people use animal behavior to justify homosexuality. there are a long list of animal behavior that will justify a lot of evil human acts, some of them are

a. eating their young
b. eating their spouse
c. physically assaulting other males to have all the females
d. in relation to C, polygamy
e. procreating with your mom and/or siblings and/or children
f. fighting for supremacy

those are just some of what i can think of right now

so following the same logic, we should also make all these things legal if we are making homosexuality legal because they are all natural animal behaviors

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

All of the points you make could be aptly included in the reply.

i agree with your reply to objection 1

a lot of people use animal behavior to justify homosexuality. there are a long list of animal behavior that will justify a lot of evil human acts, some of them are

a. eating their young
b. eating their spouse
c. physically assaulting other males to have all the females
d. in relation to C, polygamy
e. procreating with your mom and/or siblings and/or children
f. fighting for supremacy

those are just some of what i can think of right now

so following the same logic, we should also make all these things legal if we are making homosexuality legal because they are all natural animal behaviors

 

[inocente]

A central difficulty with natural law is in its ambiguity: how do its general claims about natural human behavior translate into specific maxims? Different interpreters arrive at various lists, but all are open to criticism.

For example, is kissing allowed when the mouth was designed for eating and talking? Is kissing with tongues allowed when tongues were not designed for that either (and when touching tongues can pass on diseases)? Is writing and typing allowed when hands were not designed for them? Is putting a child on your shoulder allowed?

An off-the-peg answer is that these are not disordered because the anatomical parts in question are multipurpose. But a penis is also multipurpose, that’s how men urinate.

There’s also an issue unknown to Aquinas caused by a little idea called the theory of evolution, a theory upheld by the Church. In this view of the world, nothing is designed or purposeful in the normal sense of the words. We could go further. Language allows us to communicate as a group. Does homosexuality also have a natural function at group level (no one yet knows)?

Another problem is with the derivation of whichever version of natural law we wish to hold true. Aquinas appeals to divine law, and the OP appeals to scripture, but we can all find verses in the Pentateuch that Christians do not practice. If one society deems something good and another says not then who gets to choose?

I don’t know a way around these issues, or of an alternative system of ethics that doesn’t have its own equivalent problems, but it seems to me that ultimately we can only fall back on our individual conscience, which then reduces the whole business to the level of a civil law in a democracy. I notice that Jesus is never slow to criticize but never mentions homosexuality. His silence may be insignificant or may speak volumes.

 

[MormonHero]

Reply Objection 4. As stated in Objection 3 and its reply, the homosexual act can tend toward love, and so will be bad, but not wholly bad.

Let’s go further: are promiscuous homosexual acts ‘more bad’ than monogamous homosexual acts?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

An off-the-peg answer is that these are not disordered because the anatomical parts in question are multipurpose…

My “off-the-peg” answer is that the acts you list are, generally, morally neutral. They can be used for good (to help complete human purpose, as kissing can encourage love in or toward the marriage relationship, or can encourage bonding amongst family and friends, and was encouraged liturgically by Christ himself toward Christian unity), or for evil (kissing passionately in the context of an adulterous relationship). St. Thomas Aquinas is actually pretty straight-forward about determining moral neutrality. If the act can be placed in a context where it is a moral good in itself, then the act is at least morally neutral. If not, then the act is morally evil.

There’s also an issue unknown to Aquinas caused by a little idea called the theory of evolution, a theory upheld by the Church. In this view of the world, nothing is designed or purposeful in the normal sense of the words.

Not at all in my interpretation of Evolution theory. Evolution theory, if it’s really scientific, says nothing by itself about “purpose”, or other metaphysical/teleological frameworks (though teleology has been useful in inspiring good science, as with Dirac’s antiparticle hypothesis). This is because science, as a physico-mathematical framework, is too weak to incorporate such concepts.

But to say effectively that “physical science is the be-all and end-all of knowledge”, something I’m sure you don’t do, and to thus capitulate to the anti-theistic claims that evolution is not driven by purpose simply because no purpose for it has been (or properly can be) scientifically demonstrated, would lead to the moral conclusion, via natural law, that human life is no longer sacred, because humans evolved, and what evolves cannot have any sort of purpose in the normal sense of the word, much less a sacred one.

No, it is a necessary belief for the Catholic Faith, proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, that God is the creator of everything, including the human person, and as such that we have a definite purpose in that creation, a purpose joined necessarily to the redemption of that world made through Christ Jesus, the eternal son of God.

We could go further. Language allows us to communicate as a group. Does homosexuality also have a natural function at group level (no one yet knows)?

I don’t understand this question. Could you explain better the relationship between the middle sentence (“language allows us…”) and the last sentence (“does homosexuality also…”)?

Another problem is with the derivation of whichever version of natural law we wish to hold true. Aquinas appeals to divine law, and the OP appeals to scripture, but we can all find verses in the Pentateuch that Christians do not practice. If one society deems something good and another says not then who gets to choose?

I didn’t quote the Torah. I quoted St. Paul in Romans. Furthermore, I have tradition on my side, as well as the entire history of the Church and the rational argument from natural law, all three of which give credence to my claim, which is by no means controversial amongst orthodox theologians.

As for civil law, I don’t think every aspect of the natural law should show in the positive law (and I’m in the spirit of St. Augustine on this, I think). But that’s a whole other thread.

And finally for conscience. If it’s simply conscience, without any sort of objective ethical reference-frame, then why should we think anything of the morality of those who claim to have no conscience, or whose conscience reaches different conclusions than ours? How could we, for example, express moral outrage that would be anything but our own private feeling at the torture perpetrated in Guantanamo, since the torturers, at least some of them, have clean consciences about these actions?

By what method do we ever determine the validity of private conscience?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Let’s go further: are promiscuous homosexual acts ‘more bad’ than monogamous homosexual acts?

Excellent question. I don’t know the answer. Give me some time to think upon it, and in the mean time, I’d love to hear your views on the matter.

 

[MormonHero]

Excellent question. I don’t know the answer. Give me some time to think upon it, and in the mean time, I’d love to hear your views on the matter.

I would say promiscuity is a greater harm than monogamy. Given that, one could argue for the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but nuanced in a way that monogamous homosexual acts are seen as less harmful than promiscuous homosexual acts.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I would say promiscuity is a greater harm than monogamy. Given that, one could argue for the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but nuanced in a way that monogamous homosexual acts are seen as less harmful than promiscuous homosexual acts.

Call me obsessive if you wish, but I’d like to use the term “monogyny” and “monoandry”, as “monogamy” implies marriage, and complicates the whole issue.

In general, though, I think an argument for this could be made. It seems for one thing that more exclusive relationships, even if sinful, would at least afford less of an occasion for sin.

Give me a bit of time to work on this.

 

[inocente]

Paul, you read me correctly, thanks. My only intention is state arguments against natural law without necessarily taking sides.

If the act can be placed in a context where it is a moral good in itself, then the act is at least morally neutral. If not, then the act is morally evil.

The problem is how the decision about morality is made. For example, take 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. St Paul says that sex in marriage is about expressing love and avoiding temptation. He may have meant plus something else, and the something else may be procreation, but that’s not what he says. Personally, I get what he is saying there but don’t then understand the emphasis in natural law on procreation alone. It isn’t necessarily wrong but seems subjective. This type of ambiguity is at the heart of many peoples’ arguments against the law, and was never resolved in the previous thread.

I don’t understand this question. Could you explain better the relationship between the middle sentence (“language allows us…”) and the last sentence (“does homosexuality also…”)?

The theory of evolution says we developed in groups, and that there are things about us that can only be properly understood at group level. We didn’t need it to know the value and nature of language in that context, but suppose that there is an advantage at group level for homosexuality. No one knows yet, but take one speculation about pre-historic times - a homosexual in a family can provide an extra pair of hands to help the family survive (including his/her proxy genes) without adding to the load by producing more babies. If strong evidence is found for something like that, we might then have to conclude that homosexuality and the homosexual act should properly be called natural.

I didn’t quote the Torah. I quoted St. Paul in Romans. Furthermore, I have tradition on my side, as well as the entire history of the Church and the rational argument from natural law, all three of which give credence to my claim, which is by no means controversial amongst orthodox theologians.

Tradition, the history of the Church and the view of orthodox theologians will be countered as an argument from authority, and sola scriptura-ists will want the authority to be scripture. The argument that natural law, at least in this respect, is rational will be countered with “well, prove it” but this is difficult for any system of ethics, particularly in this case when most (all?) other generally accepted systems don’t draw the same conclusion about the homosexual act.

By what method do we ever determine the validity of private conscience?

Exactly. “The said law, to which the Apostle Paul refers (cf. Rom 2: 14-15), is written on the heart of man and is consequently, even today, accessible.” - Pope Benedict XVI. The issue is that if the law is written on our heart, what if we don’t find any given conclusion there?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Paul, you read me correctly, thanks. My only intention is state arguments against natural law without necessarily taking sides.

Then I will try to respond charitably, and in the spirit of your purpose. Please let me know if I have misunderstood your intent in my replies, as they may be short in parts.

The problem is how the decision about morality is made. For example, take 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. St Paul says that sex in marriage is about expressing love and avoiding temptation. He may have meant plus something else, and the something else may be procreation, but that’s not what he says.

For the first part, the word “only” is not used in these verses. For the second part, in the context of marriage as described in the Old and New Testament, and by Christ himself numerously, procreation seems to be an important aspect. For the third part, tradition, understanding these verses, has historically understood procreation to be central to marriage. Fourthly, the natural law argument is valid and sound (as far as I can tell) and so establishes the immorality of homosexual acts independently of Revelation or the historical understanding of revelation.

Personally, I get what he is saying there but don’t then understand the emphasis in natural law on procreation alone. It isn’t necessarily wrong but seems subjective. This type of ambiguity is at the heart of many peoples’ arguments against the law, and was never resolved in the previous thread.

If you read carefully my answer in the first post, I think you will discover that I don’t hold to procreation alone, but also an argument from the standpoint of the expression of love, asserting that any expression of love within the homosexual act is necessarily disordered because of the nature of the act.

The theory of evolution says we developed in groups, and that there are things about us that can only be properly understood at group level. We didn’t need it to know the value and nature of language in that context, but suppose that there is an advantage at group level for homosexuality.

This I think is rightly answered by an expanded reply to objection 1, which I will work on. Namely, advantage for the group does not necessairly determine the moral character of certain actions. As an example, the Netsilik peoples in Canada long practiced infanticide, because it substantially helped group survival. This does not establish moral neutrality for infanticide, but rather the fact that many evil actions can, if applied in certain ways, lead to some good for an individual or group of people. However, because that is not the only end, and not the intended end for the act or group of actions, the action is evil, even though that evil action may have resulted ultimately in a greater good. That this can happen is more the function, I believe, of providence than of any natural goodness in the mistaken maxim “the ends justify the means.”

I’ll rewrite the objection, but it appears to me your objection here is a straightforward misunderstanding of the structure and function of natural law.

Tradition, the history of the Church and the view of orthodox theologians will be countered as an argument from authority, and sola scriptura-ists will want the authority to be scripture. The argument that natural law, at least in this respect, is rational will be countered with “well, prove it” but this is difficult for any system of ethics, particularly in this case when most (all?) other generally accepted systems don’t draw the same conclusion about the homosexual act.

I quoted Scripture (even to the satisfaction of any traditional sola scripturist), I also cited Church tradition, and provided a rational argument. If one or the other is not sufficient, the third should be.

Natural law is “proved” in the most basic sense, that it follows from certain axioms, called “self-evident” (that their denial involves a total break-down in communication within the realm determined by the “self-evident” principles). If the axioms are rejected, or if the system itself is set aside in favor of another ethical framework, then what is being considered is no longer the merits of natural law, or the natural law defense of the sinfulness of the homosexual act, but rather the homosexual act as considered within a different ethical framework. This is outside the scope of this thread.

It is my intiution, though, that since other ethical systems (utilitarianism, deontology, other virtue ethics systems, pragmatism, divine command theory) typically reach the same conclusions in most areas, careful examination of each of them would reach comparable conclusions for the case of the homosexual act as well. Nevertheless, this is a rabbit trail, and is too expansive for this thread. If you wish to discuss this issue, please start another thread. I’ll be happy to provide my opinions and vague notions about the answer to these problems.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Exactly. “The said law, to which the Apostle Paul refers (cf. Rom 2: 14-15), is written on the heart of man and is consequently, even today, accessible.” - Pope Benedict XVI. The issue is that if the law is written on our heart, what if we don’t find any given conclusion there?

A law may be completely bound to the mind, such that the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises. This is true in much of mathematics. However, not everyone can perform the steps necessary to prove the conclusion from the set of premises.

I think the same is true from the “law written in human hearts”, which I think speaks not so much to conscience in itself, but conscience in the context of the natural law (that is the law written in the human heart). That disagreements arise is due either to the sinful nature of the individual, a mistake in reason from premise to conclusion, or an uncertainty about purpose in nature.

When we deal with natural law by itself, it is necessarily a weak system, and its conclusions are always uncertain. This is why the “on the contrary” exists. It is a certain way to test the results of a natural law argument against divine revelation, to see if the argument holds up.

 

[inocente]

Paul, I’ll split things up to make it easier.

Before starting, there’s an issue with using Rom 1:26-27 in the OP.

Skipping the introductory verses (Rom 1:1-13), the remainder of the chapter is a premise to chapter 2 – it must be, because of the “therefore” in 2:1.

Chapter 2 says a number of things, but one of them is that the Jews know the law from scripture, while the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts (2:14).

Since the scripture of the Jews is the Torah, it is that (Pentateuch) law that must be written on the hearts of the Gentiles. This equivalence rules out any part of the NT as being written on their hearts.

Now of course there is no harm in using the NT to help clarify, extend and interpret natural law, but it doesn’t seem legitimate to also use it as the grounding of the law written on their hearts, especially 1:26-27 which St Paul only wrote a few verses earlier.

If you agree, the OP can be improved by removing the reference to Rom 1:26-27. You will see that there is a potential trap in replacing it with a quote from the OT unless you can find one that is uncontroversial. Can the OP stand without any reference? (I can’t say, but you know a lot more about the law than me).

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Paul, I’ll split things up to make it easier.

Before starting, there’s an issue with using Rom 1:26-27 in the OP.

I am not a Scripture scholar. To me, after reading the commentary and analysis of these verses by experienced and orthodox Scripture scholars, it is my position that these verses condemn homosexual activity (though church fathers are divided about this, St. Athanasius and Augustine thinking that this talks about heterosexual activity, and St. John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria thinking it does refer to homosexual activity). About this I am not expert enough to pursue in greater detail; since my knowledge is very limited, the potential for error is great, so I will stick with the historical understanding of these verses.

Because of this, we can discuss the natural law, but any answer that natural law would get contrary to my understanding of homosexual activity would be a failure of natural law, and not of the case against homosexual activity. About that, I am unwilling at this time to revise my own opinion (that it is sinful), but about natural law defending my position, I would be willing to reconsider.

If you agree, the OP can be improved by removing the reference to Rom 1:26-27. You will see that there is a potential trap in replacing it with a quote from the OT unless you can find one that is uncontroversial. Can the OP stand without any reference? (I can’t say, but you know a lot more about the law than me).

I will keep with these verses for now, because it is the interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas (found in Part 2-2 Q. 154 Art. 11 of the Summa Theologica), about which this activity is being undertaken “in his spirit”. If his interpretation is really that suspect, I can simply quote any Church Father on homosexuality, and use that as the authority for the “on the contrary”.

 

[inocente]

I will keep with these verses for now, because it is the interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas (found in Part 2-2 Q. 154 Art. 11 of the Summa Theologica), about which this activity is being undertaken “in his spirit”. If his interpretation is really that suspect, I can simply quote any Church Father on homosexuality, and use that as the authority for the “on the contrary”.

How then does natural law add to scripture in respect to the homosexual act? It seems circular and redundant.

My motive here is to reason out something that puzzles me greatly. Living in Spain, once the most Catholic of countries, I notice a continuing fall, possibly more a collapse, in the influence of the Church. The vast majority of people describe themselves as Catholic but church attendance keeps dropping. Churches are becoming places for weddings and funerals only.

Homosexuals can marry here, adopt children, and are openly recruited in the military, police and other public roles. The Guardia Civil allocates rooms for married couples in its barracks. Yet society is far from broken.

The old thread showed that the natural law arguments on sex are hard to understand and to defend. It seems that most people in Spain don’t have them written on their hearts. Why then does the Church maintain a tenuous position that harms it?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

How then does natural law add to scripture in respect to the homosexual act? It seems circular and redundant.

The “on the contrary” has nothing directly to do with the Natural Law. It’s there because St. Thomas Aquinas would have it there, and also because it joins revelation and infallible interpretation upon that revelation (which is certain) to arguments from natural law (which are only as certain as the strength of the argument and the soundness of the premises).

Homosexuals can marry here, adopt children, and are openly recruited in the military, police and other public roles. The Guardia Civil allocates rooms for married couples in its barracks. Yet society is far from broken.

There is nothing inherently pragmatic in all the conclusions of natural law. Some people enjoin a pragmatism to them, and may be right (we will have to wait to find out). Certainly, Europe as well as the United States, in slaughtering millions of innocent children, isn’t exactly in the position to claim a sort of moral high-ground. But much of society works well there.

The argument you present here is actually answered well by Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Genuine happiness isn’t determined by extrinsic goods (the well-functioning society), but by intrinsic goods (what a well-functioning society allows people to do with their free time). You don’t need to have all goods (interjecting Christian philosophy, there will always be some disorder in any society). But individuals will be happier the more virtuous they make their lives. If Natural Law as a system is even accurate, then activities that violate the proper end should interfere with happiness (that genuine contentedness that arises from the virtuous life). Also, Aristotle speculated, one serious vice may destroy the happiness of a person otherwise virtuous.

What this means at the end of the day is that very pleased people in a very functional society may still tend toward a disordered end, and be generally miserable for it. Since the society of Spain does not force people to live disordered lives, many people in Spain, I imagine, are genuinely happy. Some, I imagine, are even blessed.

The old thread showed that the natural law arguments on sex are hard to understand and to defend. It seems that most people in Spain don’t have them written on their hearts.

I disagree. And, I think, the tenuous nature of homosexual relationships, the empirical fact that they don’t tend to last as long or be as healthy as marriage relationships, is a sign of the inherent unhappiness involved in people avoiding their proper purposes in life. But about this and the following (loaded) question you ask, I refuse to discuss here further.

The purpose of this thread is not the validity of natural law (start a thread about this yourself, if you wish, and let me know about it), but what conclusions natural law reaches about homosexual activity. This particular regime in natural law is less interesting to me than others because the conclusion is not relevant to my life (I’m not gay), and because the conclusion is fairly straight-forward.

 

[awatkins69]

My “off-the-peg” answer is that the acts you list are, generally, morally neutral. They can be used for good (to help complete human purpose, as kissing can encourage love in or toward the marriage relationship, or can encourage bonding amongst family and friends, and was encouraged liturgically by Christ himself toward Christian unity), or for evil (kissing passionately in the context of an adulterous relationship). St. Thomas Aquinas is actually pretty straight-forward about determining moral neutrality. If the act can be placed in a context where it is a moral good in itself, then the act is at least morally neutral. If not, then the act is morally evil.

So, why can’t homosexual sex be morally neutral, and be used in certain contexts for the good? For instance, why can’t it be a way to increase bonding between two male friends? That’s a human good. So why is a certain use of the reproductive organs disordered, but a certain use of the mouth not?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

So, why can’t homosexual sex be morally neutral, and be used in certain contexts for the good?

The proper end of the marital act is procreation and imaging the Trinity and the unity of Christ and His Church.

Two men can’t have children.

The union of two men in a sexual act does not image the Trinity or Christ and His Church, because the persons of the Trinity are not identical (the Father is not the Son), and Christ is not identical to His Church (though the Church is also the mysical body of Christ, we don’t consider the suffering of the Church to be literally Christ suffering in heaven; we also don’t think him some sort of pantheistic entity).

Homosexual activity cannot properly fulfill the purpose of the marital act.

For instance, why can’t it be a way to increase bonding between two male friends? That’s a human good.

Indeed it is. Homosexual activity, like every action, can have some good in it. James Akin has recently written about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That bombing had good consequences, but cannot be a good in itself, since the intent was to kill innocent human lives, and this necessarily violates the end of any single person.

Homosexual activity can bring about some good, but that doesn’t justify the activity itself. Nevertheless, the good brought about by such an act, and more so by other non-sinful actions possible in a homosexual relationship, should properly temper our judgment of such relationships, to be able to see the potential for genuine love in them, even if we must condemn the activity itself, and must discourage it in all Church members. We certainly shouldn’t bless relationships that can only be sinful.

So why is a certain use of the reproductive organs disordered, but a certain use of the mouth not?

There are disordered uses of language. For example, to lie, or to incite someone to sin. Natural law isn’t limited to discussing sexual sins.

 

[awatkins69]

The proper end of the marital act is procreation and imaging the Trinity and the unity of Christ and His Church.

Two men can’t have children.

The union of two men in a sexual act does not image the Trinity or Christ and His Church, because the persons of the Trinity are not identical (the Father is not the Son), and Christ is not identical to His Church (though the Church is also the mysical body of Christ, we don’t consider the suffering of the Church to be literally Christ suffering in heaven; we also don’t think him some sort of pantheistic entity)…

There are disordered uses of language. For example, to lie, or to incite someone to sin. Natural law isn’t limited to discussing sexual sins.

I’m just having a hard time figuring out how an abstract thing like an act can have an end. And I’m not sure if anyone who isn’t a Christian would accept the theological answer to the problem. Surely it is a good answer to Christians.

As for the second point I meant why is it that a use of the reproductive organs which is not in accordance with their ends is okay, but a use of the mouth in kissing, which is not the end of the mouth is not okay? Or is it the end of the mouth? And how do we know the ends of things?