Laurie, you just DID express an opinion about these statistics. You don’t have to be a statistician to believe statistically based evidence. Taking your view, the statistics on smoking and health could only convince smokers with a degree in statistics. Come off it.Djeter,
1] It needs to be shown that the negative results are due to being gay and not to other factors.
2] Even if there was only one faithful gay couple in the world who expressed their love via safe sex then that couple, in my view are acting morally. As for the rest I would be happy to join you in saying they were immoral.
So you see your figures are [1] irrelevant and [2] as explained, not being an expert in the field of social science,** I am not competent to express an opinion**
Not that you guys probably need another interloper at this point, but oh well!Dear Laurie,
Thankyou again for the above response.
Yes indeed, it is you that matters my dear chap since you are the one that the apologist must convince and win over, hopefully. Throughout our discussion in this and the previous threads I have been only too aware of my failure; could I have put my arguments more powerfully and persuasively?; could I have expressed myself more clearly and precisely?; has my manner of writing sounded clinical and curt?; has Christian charity been violated in any way? etc etc. All I can say is that as a recent convert to the Holy Catholic Church, I have laboured to do my utmost to show that homosexual deviant acts are contrary to the natural law, without being unduly harsh.
As I have remarked previously, I think it would repay you to thoroughly investigate the claims of the Catholic Church from unbiased sources, especially giving attention to the Primacy of Rome. Since Catholic Answers is an apologetics web site, and an orthodox one at that, you will find much helpful material to aid your study and research. If you want to discuss literature or fields of study you can always send me a PM and I will help you in any way I can old chap. Before you dismiss the Catholic Church and its teaching on faith and morals, you need to intensively study its claims first so that you know what it really is that you are dismissing and not mere uniformed prejudice.
We probably have reached a position from which progress is impossible, well at least when it comes to me trying to convince you that homosexual deviant acts are wrong because they are unnatural. However, it is my conviction that one of the chief reasons why you have not been persuaded is because you have good reasons for not wnating to be. Laurie, you have a daughter whom you love very dearly, who is has been in a lesbian liaison for some 20 years, now this makes it exceedingly difficult for you to have a change of heart. For if you were to become convinced that homosexual conduct was wrong and improper this could prove problematic as regards your domestic situation. I think every Catholic on this thread would truly sympathise with you in this regard for your position is not an envious one. This I believe is probably influencing you a great deal more than you would be prepared to acknowledge.
Be that as it may, let us move on now and yes do start by telling me why your morality approves of homosexual liasons and genital acts.
I am taking a breather now until Monday afternoon, so have a splendid weekend my dear fellow whatever you are doing.
May I take this opportunity to thank all my Catholic brethren on this thread for their excellent and learned contributions to the debate; it has been a pleasure reading them and I have learned so much. Thankyou and please keep posting.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Thanks for the welcome. A few points/questions.Dear Hubriss,
Cordial greetings and welcome to the thread.
The natural law actually does provide an excellent foundation for morality, especially when the Judaeo-Christian principles which underlie it are bourne in mind.
1/ The laws of morality should be seen as our Creators instructions for the right running of ourselves, with at least the authority of the instructions that Ford or BMW give for the right running of their cars.
2/ The laws of morality really are laws and their operation is not contingent on man’s approval, they work whether we like them or not; thus the laws of justice or purity or worship are as real as say the law of gravity. Every sin damages or diminishes us (including homosexual vice or rape); men are less human and much the worse for having commited it.
3/ However inconvenient or irksome we may feel a given instruction is, it is mere common sense to be grateful to God for telling us (as indeed we are grateful to Ford or BMW for the instructions they give us when we buy one of their cars).
4/ Moral laws then are inextricably linked with health. Virtue is not simply the absence of sin, it is the right direction of energy; the moral law informs us what the right direction is. Being bound up with health, they are essential for man’s happiness. Without them men can only follow inclination which results in them getting, spiritually speaking, exceedingly flabby. For the soul’s muscles, like the body’s, grow by effort and there is hardly effort in following one’s inclination.
Finally, rape is decidedly unnatural and cannot be in any wise justified on the grounds of it being a “good reproductive strategy”, for it is “…forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It *causes grave damage *that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2356, emphasis mine). Incontrovertibly, any act in which force is used and which occasions grave damage to another and makes the perpetrator of such an act less than human, can hardly be deemed natural.
Don’t you know that the pagans acknowledged its reality?FlyCatcher
Who can prove naturtal law exists?
, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]Don’t you know that the pagans acknowledged its reality?
Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right
There is no problem understanding philosophical reasons. Are you arguing that you are a superior intellect who can understand such reasons, while the rest of us flounder in ignorance? If so, that’s simply a very weak argument from authority.If you cannot understand philosophical reasons for realities, why question?
What is your feeling for a “proof of existence”? The particular “pagans” for whom you couldn’t care less were merely philosophers. Look up the meaning.
Here I suppose is the root of our parting of the ways. I am not a Roman Catholic. You are. I am willing to leave it there, but you are interested also in characterizing those who disagree with you with this particular term of art with which you are clearly infatuated: “selfist.” At root, it’s a bit of babble, but malleable, hence useful. You can use it to describe Protestants, you can use it to describe gay folks, you can use it to describe anyone you feel does not agree with you. It is a term of division, dividing us and them. But as such, it’s a self-reflexive term. That is, why are such terms used in the first place? Because we are concerned about *our *purity, our righteousness, our goodness. We don’t want to be polluted by the accursed others. So we invent words and fences to separate ourselves and delude ourselves into believing that these words apply only to them. Never to us, despite the fact that we characterize ourselves by these words as much as we characterize them. A wall divides, but it also connects. You may be shocked or bemused to discover one day that selfism (whatever that means) has become so dear to your own heart, so much a part of your own identity, that you would be lost without it. This is the fruit of self-righteousness–which, I would imagine, could easily be classed as its own chapter in the selfist agenda.The wrong interpretation of the New Testament given to us by Christ’s Church is part of the selfist opposition to truth, as Christ gave us His Church and She authoritatively determined what writings form the Sacred Scriptures.
I would hope that these people would follow their conscience! As much I believe them to be in error on this point, I would not want them to shrink from doing what they believe to be the right thing.those lesbians and homosexuals who appreciate that the activity is wrong, aspire to remain chaste.
But my question still stands–how does natural moral law escape your critique of process morality if both are founded on utility? That you have expressed that you don’t like the question does not mean that you have answered it.What a mirage – “biological utility” – to characterise the moral law which asserts true love and the procreation commanded by God: the unitive purpose without wilfully impeding the procreative purpose.
Once again, you confuse an interest in understanding something with infatuation. Suit yourself! But one day I’m sure you’ll discover that words do actually mean something quite apart from your own desire for them to mean whatever you might want them to mean on any given day.Further, while infatuated with your process “theology” you blissfully ignore the teaching of Christ’s Church which definitively proclaims that homosexual/lesbian activity is gravely evil.
Here, at last, we agree!The real Gospel is found in Christ:
But here we run into a problem. Never did I suggest that James’ epistle was opposed to Christ! But perhaps you subconsciously believe that that is the case. Perhaps you believe that the Royal Law of Love of which James speaks is somehow contrary to Jesus’ statement that the law will not pass away until it is fulfilled, prefaced by his statement that he himself is the fulfilling of the law! I don’t see how you can construe James and Christ here as in opposition in the least…unless you harbor some misgivings about the Royal Law, or believe, perhaps, that Jesus fulfilled the law only up to a point, and that we need to continue to rely on works of the law in order to be good and moral people. I am beginning to believe that you may feel that a new Christian legalism is necessary in order to follow Christ who is the only Way (how ironic!). I am beginning to feel that perhaps you may take comfort in the law as opposed to grace, because the law can be a convenient replacement for the development of conscience, because it is easy to look up and quote, because we all secretly don’t want a person to be the Way, but a series of clear steps to follow. Because the Spirit of grace that blows where it will is dangerous to our conceptions of holiness, naturalness, us and them. Because it is the Spirit’s work that Paul calls “para physin” or “against nature” when he describes God grafting the gentiles onto the tree of Israel in an act of grace. Paul calls the law a curse, does he not? Because no one is righteous under the law. But it’s easy to convince ourselves that we are when we allow ourselves to believe that righteousness is just a matter of following the rules. “…Once you seek to be reckoned as upright through the law, then you have separated yourself from Christ, you have fallen away from grace.” (Gal. 5:4)In his Sermon on the Mount our Lord said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” Indeed, he continued, “Of this much I assure you: until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter, shall be done away with until it all comes true. That is why whoever breaks the least significant of these commands and teaches others to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of God. Whoever fulfills and teaches these commands shall be called great in the kingdom of God” (Matt 5.17-19). Now, you try to oppose John’s Epistle to Christ. A further example of trying to taint the message which His Church teaches of love and the obedience to His law written on our hearts (St Paul).
I’ve never spoken of license. I did, however, speak of responsibility previously. Have you read the first part of Simone Weil’s The Need for Roots? It’s discussion of the necessity of responsibility is very powerful. I know you won’t read it. And even if you did, I’m unsure if it would convince you of my understanding of the relationship between love and responsibility. But. There we are.The “freeing encounter” which you conjecture is your spin on the licence which is the very antipathy of real freedom.
I’ve not read the article, but I wish this person, whoever she is, a blessed life.For the views of a lesbian, chaste, faithful Catholic see:
nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/05beliefs.html?scp=1&sq=Mark Oppenheimer&st=cse
Dear Hubriss,Thanks for the welcome. A few points/questions.
According to your 4 points, why call it “natural moral law” and not just “God’s law?” You say explicitly in your first point that these laws come from God.
According to your second point, what reason do you have to believe from nature that morality is made up of actual laws, objective of man? For morality do be forced by actual laws independent of man, it presupposes an enforcer of the laws who would in this case be supernatural.
Finally, how do you decide what is natural and unnatural? It seems that as we observe the natural world, everything found in it is natural. About rape you say, “It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right.” You say earlier in 2 and 3 something to the effect that what is is “not contingent on man’s approval,” and “however inconvenient or irksome we may feel a given instruction is” does not mean it’s incorrect. I would agree. It does not matter what your or the Church’s feelings are about how abstract notions of justice and charity and integrity can be “injured” or “wounded,” it does not mean there must be actual laws that exist, besides the ones that we as humans set up, in order to safe-guard them.
If I’m just butting in, sorry, but I don’t think the concept of natural moral law has any basis besides the Church. If you consider the Church to be that basis, “Natural Moral Law” seems to be a very deceptive term.
Edit: I seem to have the same idea as the above poster. I know “Natural Moral Law” is an official Church apologetic teaching, so it’s not your idea Portrait, and you may not be the best to defend it. I have talked to other apologists about it though, and have reached my own conclusions of it.
Dear Laurie,The fact that all homosexual liaisons are manifestly closed to the possibility of children is a good enough reason per se to demonstrate that they are wrong and unnatural, contrary to nature and the natural order of things.
But not to me. My relations with my wife are closed to children.
Explaining the ‘why’ would involve an examination of the genesis of natural law and though I have attempted to undertake this you have refused to engage in any meaningful discussion with me on the topic.
But the point was originally that you were supposed to be justifying Natural Law to an honest non-believer.
Laurie, if some action is harmful to a man then how can that action be natural and right? Homosexual conduct is acknowledged by both sides of the debate to be seriously hazardous to health,
It does not have to be provided you are careful so all you prove is that gays ought not to have risky sex.
But I think – see my last post – you are not able to go further. Move on?
Dear Laurie,
If you do not mind I feel that I must respond to a couple of things in this post.
First, there was a time when your relationship with your wife was not closed to the possibility of children. That it is so now is perfectly natural since your wife is now past the age of child bearing. However, as regards a homosexual union that will never be open to the possibility children because it is so obviously unnatural and wrong. It is contrary to nature whilst your relations with your wife clearly are not. Sorry but the analogy cannot be sustained.
What a very odd criterion!
Second, look the fact that homosexuals have to take such care to avoid the health hazards (StevenD’s posts above have discussed what those hazards are) associated with their unnantural sexual activities, clearly shows that something is gravely irregular and wrong about such activities. The whole of their sexual conduct is fraught with danger and the evidence for this is so overwheming that even a blind man on a galloping horse could see it.
Climbing a mountain is dangerous - so we ought to be careful and use safety equipment if we like this sport.
Some types of gay sex involve a certain degree of risk - so if you are gay and want to express your love this way and it helps you to flourish - take sensible precautions.
I think my horse is trotting and my sight is fine!
Laurie
Dear Portrait,
Thanks for the sermon! Below are my answers
Unfortunately your basis for morality is fundamentally flawed because it has no higher authority than your own personal opinion; what authority is your opinion supposed to have over me or other men and from whence are the “moral concepts” that most people implicitly accept derived from? Moreover, who finally decides whether your criterion is correct or erroneous?
My morality is based on what produces human flourishing and that is not a matter of opinion. I assume that you want human beings to flourish and so we might have some common ground.
What is required to create a life where people really do flourish is a firm sense of right and wrong and a determination to order one’s life accordingly. …it is what harmonizes with our created nature and makes us truly happy and most fulfilled.
Leave out the word ‘created’ and we agree!
The problem with our age is that the rampant moral relativism provides no sure foundation for a safe and orderly society.
I do not agree with relativism!
If there are no moral laws and people are free to decide for themselves what is right, then how can any society agree on and enforce even minimal standards?
But, as I have explained I do think there are standards and I do not think that people are free to decide what is right and wrong.
There is nothing more certain than that God wishes man to be happy, but happy on his terms not ours, my dear fellow. When God issued the Decalogue it was intended to truly help man to prosper both spiritually and physically. When man violates God’s law then the opposite will surely be the case.
If there is a God who is good then he would have made us with a nature such that when we flourish then we would be happy. So you and I can agree on right and wrong, at least in theory, our only disagreement being on the origins of human nature. What you call ‘our happiness’ would also be what God wants for us too.
As regards homosexual liaisons love is not the only absolute to authenticate such a union. The moral law, natural or Divine, has not been rescinded. Therefore love needs law to guide it aright. In emphasizing love for God and neighbour as the two great commandments, our Lord did not discard all other commandments.
God would not make a law that prevents a person flourishing [provided such flourishing did not harm others]
Moreover, the fact that those involved in a “monogamous” homosexual liaison must still use safe sex, clearly evinces that something is seriously amiss with such a union; can you imagine any married man having to use safe sex with his wife in order to avoid health hazards? This shows that homosexual genital acts are unnatural (which you concede) and wrong also, otherwise there would be no need to have to practice “safe sex” if the liaison was normal and proper.
I do not think it is sensible to discuss this particular point as we have covered it fully previously.
The problem you have, to repeat is – you think;
1] A faithful gay partnership, using safe sex, can be happy and flourish by all ordinary standards, yet…
2] God, who is 100% good, has made some rather odd rules that entail they are wicked and are in danger of eternal punishment.
Well you may be right, there is no logical flaw in this position [perhaps] but it seems to more likely that ‘your opinion’ as to the nature of God may be in error
continued
Dear Laurie,
Thankyou most kindly for the above.
By way of reply I would say that it is still an issue of opinion since men will differ, as indeed you and I do, as to what will truly enable a person to flourish. To my mind homosexual liaisons are unwholesome and, in the long term, self destructive mentally and physically, whereas you believe that they can tend towards happiness and can help those who engage them to flourish. Please tell me dear fellow why your opinion should be believed and why it is right? The fact that there is no authority to decide which of our opinions is the correct one is clearly problematic; I feel that we are on that subjective pathway again to a mere quagmire of competing opinions that ultimately leads to moral relativism, since one man’s opinion is as good as another’s.
From whence is our firm sense of right and wrong derived?
Whilst you say that you do not agree with moral relativism, your position, as I have remarked above, ultimately leads to that because we have no authoritative way in which to appraise different behaviours. You need to be able to validate why your personal views are the right ones and why they ought to be embraced by all men.
If you believe there are moral standards, then what are their origin? I suspect that they are derived from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
You state in your last paragraph that respecting the nature of God “my opinion may be in error”, but that is merely your opinion about my opinion. How can we decide which of our opinion’s is correct and trustworthy?; what is the final court of apppeal in these matters?
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait