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

[Paul_Rimmer]

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.

For non-Christians who uphold Natural Law, only the procreative aspect of the marital act ,taken in itself, can be fully justified, and so the argument stands, because there is not even the potential for children from homosexual activity.

For non-Christians who do not uphold Natural Law, I’d be surprised if they’d hold interest much past the title of this thread.

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?

It does not frustrate the proper end of the mouth, and so it is morally neutral, just as whistling does not frustrate the proper end of the mouth, and is likewise neutral. Also, a mouth, as other things, can have multiple ends, and this confuses the issue.

This is why it is best, I think, to speak of the natural end of a particular act (such as speech, or kissing itself), to discover its moral value.

And how do we know the ends of things?

Via natural philosophy. Since I’m not a philosopher, I usually do not play with the details of this process.

 

[awatkins69]

That’s all very good then. The only two questions more I could still ask would be 1) How do we know the nature of such an abstract thing as an act? How do we know an act, which is somewhat less than concrete, has an end? 2) How do we know the ends of things period?

Other than that though I think you make a good case.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

That’s all very good then. The only two questions more I could still ask would be 1) How do we know the nature of such an abstract thing as an act? How do we know an act, which is somewhat less than concrete, has an end? 2) How do we know the ends of things period?

Other than that though I think you make a good case.

I may be giving too simple an answer, but I think I can answer 1. Roughly speaking, the end of an act is the purpose of the act. The end of sleep is rest/regaining your energy. The end of eating is nutrition and supplementing the body. The end of sex is procreation and mirroring the trinity (theologically).

It seems that these and others have pleasures that accompany them and though the pleasures are not bad in themselves, trouble comes when the pleasure of the act is sought without respect for the natural purpose of the act. sleep(sloth), eating(gluttony),
sex(lust), etc.

This is just my take on it, I hope this helps.

 

[awatkins69]

I think you’re absolutely right. However, my question is, *how *do we know the end/purpose?

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I came across this while reading last night

Whether there is in us a Natural law?

“Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.” Law:question 91 Article 2

He doesn’t give us any method of analyazying an act and determining it’s end. Apparently, eternal law has imprinted in us a natural inclination towards the proper ends. Maybe I’m missing a bigger point here, but it seems that the end of an act is what it’s obvious natural purpose is.

 

[inocente]

He doesn’t give us any method of analyazying an act and determining it’s end. Apparently, eternal law has imprinted in us a natural inclination towards the proper ends. Maybe I’m missing a bigger point here, but it seems that the end of an act is what it’s obvious natural purpose is.

Various philosophers seem to have differing catalogs of the basic moral goods. Aquinas mentions life, procreation, social life, knowledge, and rational conduct. Others differ - for example Grisez has self-integration, practical reasonableness, authenticity, justice and friendship, religion, life and health, knowledge of truth, appreciation of beauty, and playful activities. – stanford.edu

I guess as this thread is in the spirit of Aquinas we need to accept his list, but it’s a little unsettling that our conclusions about what is imprinted on us depend on what may be an arbitrary start point. It’s as though we set out to reach intended conclusions and then back-fill the logic later. Not necessarily wrong, but it is a weak point.

Is it OK for a mother to kiss her baby boy on the caboose? If yes, is it still OK for her to kiss her son in the same place 18 years later?