No doubt there are alternate formulations regarding natural law which do not view homosexuality as a violation of the natural moral law. Of course the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is against the natural moral law and against God’s revealed law, in that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Still, it’s a good idea to remain sympathetic towards those who suffer from the disorder, and be charitable towards them.Y
This is not to take away from the Catholic belief in Thomas but only to point out there are alternate formulations and beliefs of Natural Law that do not recognize homosexuality as a violation of the natural moral law.
For those who do not hold your religious beliefs homosexuality is neither disordered nor are the acts sinful in and of themselves. Doesn’t the Catholic church teach that a sin must be recognized as a sin and entered into with full knowledge for it to be a sin? How can it be a sin for those who have sincerely held religious beliefs difference than yours? All in all, I agree, it is a good idea to be charitable towards those who hold different religious beliefs.No doubt there are alternate formulations regarding natural law which do not view homosexuality as a violation of the natural moral law. Of course the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is against the natural moral law and against God’s revealed law, in that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Still, it’s a good idea to remain sympathetic towards those who suffer from the disorder, and be charitable towards them.
I wasn’t speaking of being charitable toward those who hold different religious beliefs. Perhaps you misread what I said. I said that we should be charitable toward those who suffer from the disorder (of homosexuality).For those who do not hold your religious beliefs homosexuality is neither disordered nor are the acts sinful in and of themselves. Doesn’t the Catholic church teach that a sin must be recognized as a sin and entered into with full knowledge for it to be a sin? How can it be a sin for those who have sincerely held religious beliefs difference than yours? All in all, I agree, it is a good idea to be charitable towards those who hold different religious beliefs.
I understood what you wrote, unfortunately my attempt to be charitable fell flat.I wasn’t speaking of being charitable toward those who hold different religious beliefs. Perhaps you misread what I said. I said that we should be charitable toward those who suffer from the disorder (of homosexuality).
Since we’re on a Catholic forum, I’m going to relate the Church’s teaching on the subject, in case anyone forgets what that is. You aren’t required to accept it.
Maybe “violation” was to strong a word. Maybe they just viewed it as merely an abnormality or a loophole in the natural law and didn’t realize that it was a moral offense.I do not think that they recognized violation of the moral law. If they thought it was wrong they would not have done it. To say otherwise implies that they are not only morally uncompassed, but intrinsically deficient.
I’m not sure but I think one of the things necessary for salvation outside the church is complete obedience to the Catholic view of the natural moral law, I could be wrong though.For those who do not hold your religious beliefs homosexuality is neither disordered nor are the acts sinful in and of themselves. Doesn’t the Catholic church teach that a sin must be recognized as a sin and entered into with full knowledge for it to be a sin? How can it be a sin for those who have sincerely held religious beliefs difference than yours? All in all, I agree, it is a good idea to be charitable towards those who hold different religious beliefs.
I don’t know either. From reading some of the ancient philosophical works, there appears to be a kind of psychological exploration taking place within the general millieu of the elder pagan world at that time and before. Men and women both were involved in the large cities in a fashionable way of life that might not have excluded the view that physical homeliness was a form of punishment by the gods or divine nature. While the comparison would not hold true today, the NT does remark that some are not fit for married life because they are incapable of it. What this disability is is not specified, but it most likely refers not to the temporary inability of drunkeness. Something very deep rooted is taking place. Maybe some forms of the behavior were actually a kind of aid and abettment to obtaining a knowledge or state of being that against the backdrop of the prevailing world view was intended to calm the appetites and transmute desire into a functional sobriety of spirit. There are psychologists today who promote homosexual behavior among their mentally ill clients. I had a falling out with one such over that exact prescription. I’m lucky I wasn’t young and impressionable.Maybe “violation” was to strong a word. Maybe they just viewed it as merely an abnormality or a loophole in the natural law and didn’t realize that it was a moral offense.
That may very well be a Catholic belief. If my recollection of earlier studies is correct, Thomas reasoned that only God can know everything about natural law and that man must supplement his knowledge of natural law with revelation and magisterium authority. If Thomas is correct how would atheists, non Catholics and even Catholics who do not have access to the revelations or magiserium know those parts of natural law.I’m not sure but I think one of the things necessary for salvation outside the church is complete obedience to the Catholic view of the natural moral law, I could be wrong though.