Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

:clapping: That says it all.

Christine, for a *Roman Catholic *that says it all. I would imagine that there’s nothing in Bunbury’s post to which a Roman could not assent. But for those of us who are not Roman, the magesterial authority of Rome is not particularly authoritative. Given, as well, that Rome claims that her understanding of morality is accessible to reason (as I believe was mentioned at the beginning of this thread), it is hardly fitting, at the end of it all, to invoke the magesterial authority, suggesting that accessibility to reason is actually insufficient, despite Rome’s claims to the contrary! It’s like doing this:
A: If you just use your head, you’ll agree with me.
B: Yeah, I’m using my head. I don’t agree with you.
A: Then you must be using your head incorrectly or sinfully.
B: I’m sorry, what?
A: You can only use your head properly if you believe in the authority of the magesterium. I believe in the authority of the magesterium. I am using my head.
B: Excuse me?
A: My position is imminently reasonable if, based on the compelling authority of the magesterium, you can assent to my position from the beginning.
B: But that’s not actually using your head.
A: The magesterium defines the proper way in which the term “using your head” is to be understood. Again, if you use your head, you’ll agree with me.
B: Ah. I need a beer.
There are many things in Bunbury’s post that I can agree with, particularly with respect to the relationship between human flourishing and God’s plan for us (after all, what we are is what God knows us to be). Our basic disagreement is twofold: 1) I do not hold the Roman magesterium to be absolutely authoritative (though I respect the fact that Romans do); 2) I do not believe that natural law as understood by Rome is synonymous with the universal law written on our hearts–I believe that natural law as understood by Rome is an important philosophical approach to understanding that universal law, but as an approach it (and the moral positions predicated upon it) should admit alteration for the sake of the truth when it’s understanding of the universal law is revealed to be flawed. Because it is objectively true (despite your and Abu’s protestations to the contrary and your arguments from authority and your laments that its sad that science does not always agree with the magesterium) that homosexual relationships are capable of producing human flourishing as the ironically named Bunbury describes that flourishing, as I have described it, and as Laurie has described it, and that that flourishing isn’t humanist code for pleasure, license, selfishness, hedonism, or even basic happiness, but is an expansion of our loving capacity to do and to will the good in concert with God’s own willing of the good in and through us.

(Speaking of Abu: I’m sorry I won’t get around to responding to your post today, my friend. Perhaps tomorrow!)

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and sorry for my delay in responding (involved with that other thread again; Its all about bikini’s!). Its rather late old chap and I’m quite tired, but I will at least reply to your first posting out of courtesy, for you key board has been that of a ready writer.

Even though homosexual liaisons may appear to prosper and those involved in them experience much hapiness etc., that per se is insufficient to justify them because the love quality that may exist is at variance with both the natural and moral law of God. This is where you and I fundamentally disagree because are point of reference are entirely different ; we are both applying a different criterion to appraise homosexual conduct.

Many of the paths in life that people follow are often seemingly right and that is why they are so very deceptive. Covetousness often masquerades as prudence and homosexual vice appears to some people as a perfectly alternative variant that has the potential to yield much pleasure and contenment to those who engage in it. Indeed, it is the fearful property of sin to conceal its true character and tendency. Moreover, blindness increases in proportion to a man’s aquaintance with it so that at length he is utterly self-deluded into believing that what he is doing in not morally wrong; on the contrary it is enabling him to “flourish” and to lead a happy and fulfilled life. My point: flourishing and hapiness etc. is a most unsatisfactory and unsafe yardstick with which to measure various behaviours and life style choices because so many men cherish self-delusion.

You would not know whether the Catholic Church does or does not provide an objective criterion of truth, since you have not undertaken an intensive investigation of her claims (at least you have not said that you have) to establish whether or not those claims can be validated.

The objective criterion of truth is not derived from the middle ages but rather from Divine revelation as contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which goes back much further, and shows that our beliefs are rooted in the very Word of God and are interpreted without error by the Church founded by His Son, Jesus Christ.

Our God is a holy and righteous as well as being a God of love and so cannot approve of that which is sinful and contrary to His own will. It is sinful and wilful men who cause “pain, suffering and angst” by their revolt against God’s laws that were intended for their physical and spiritual well-being.

Must sign off now but have a pleasant time in Durham, old boy. Good night dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It isn’t just the claims of the Church that are being denied in favor of various levels of personal reasoning, it is the works of God’s Grace in His ministers who devote their lives to Him and His people, works of God’s Grace in His creation (both the world around us and in the workings of their own hearts), and His Authority as Creator that are all being denied.

It becomes a choice for acts of wickedness, over the goodness seen in the design of creation, coming from a notion that God and His law doesn’t correspond with what is personally desired and thus is not good enough. They know better and gay sex, abortion, and euthanasia is the result and that alone would lead me strait to begging God for faith if I was not so previously blessed. Could there be any better proof of the authority in the Church coming from God than the constant teaching of God’s Law (natural and eternal) in the face of a world dedicated to such acts? or the need for such an authority?

 

[Portrait]

It isn’t just the claims of the Church that are being denied in favor of various levels of personal reasoning, it is the works of God’s Grace in His ministers who devote their lives to Him and His people, works of God’s Grace in His creation (both the world around us and in the workings of their own hearts), and His Authority as Creator that are all being denied.

It becomes a choice for acts of wickedness, over the goodness seen in the design of creation, coming from a notion that God and His law doesn’t correspond with what is personally desired and thus is not good enough. They know better and gay sex, abortion, and euthanasia is the result and that alone would lead me strait to begging God for faith if I was not so previously blessed. Could there be any better proof of the authority in the Church coming from God than the constant teaching of God’s Law (natural and eternal) in the face of a world dedicated to such acts? or the need for such an authority?

Dear Earnest,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your insightful contributions to the debate, your sentiments are mine entirely.

God’s laws should be regarded in the same manner that chemists regard formulas, chefs regard recipes and pharmacists regard perscriptions: if one follows the rules then the results are guaranteed. If you fudge the figures or disregard the directions then the end product is thereby endangered. The souls of sinful men require God’s natural and moral laws to secure eternal bliss, and obedience to them is crucial in order to achieve that end result. How formidable then is man’s individual responsibility when the power of choice ranges between good and evil, happiness and misery, life and death, salvation and ruin, heaven and hell!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

My friend Abu! I’m sorry I’m responding to your post(s) a day later than I would have liked.

The particular aspect (formal object) under which ethics (motivation based on right and wrong) considers free acts is that of their moral goodness or the rightness involved in them as human acts. The petard on which both L. Gibson, and Deo Valente are hoist is the infatuation with the self-made “standard” of “human flourishing” on which they are both fixated – precisely the failure to acknowledge that if being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

I think you’re mischaracterizing our understanding of flourishing. As I posted above, “flourishing isn’t humanist code for pleasure, license, selfishness, hedonism, or even basic happiness, but is an expansion of our loving capacity to do and to will the good in concert with God’s own willing of the good in and through us.” I would imagine that Laurie would leave off the bit about God, but I don’t think he would disagree with the fundament of what human flourishing is: an expansion of our loving capacity to do and to will the good.

You will notice that I have never invoked social acceptance as any sort of standard upon which to base either ethics, morality, science, or religion. This is part of your own consistent misreading of my motivations and intentions. If I could disabuse you of your misreading, I would. But you are so taken with it (as it fits with your cynicism regarding the capacity of gay folks to will anything other than “selfism”) that I don’t think I would have much success in the endeavor if I undertook it.

Perhaps, though, you could do this for me, Abu–since you will not listen to me, I will try to do the work of listening to you: Can you convince me that the good that I have experienced in relationship with my partner is not, in fact, good? Can you show me that the flourishing that I have experienced is not actually flourishing but is pure selfishness? Can you demonstrate that the increase in my life of peace, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and yes, even self-control are not actually the fruits of the Spirit but are in fact delusional or demonic selfist mirages? Actually, I wouldn’t recommend you trying–because you are bound to discover that you risk blasphemy in an attempt to call evil the good work of the Holy Spirit in my life. So, failing in that enterprise, can you show me that we cannot, in fact, recognize a good tree by its good fruit, and that sometimes an evil tree will produce good fruit? Can you do that? I’m sure you’ll quote a Vatican commentator or two, or invoke one Roman Catholic pundit or another that may suggest that it’s possible in some scholastic abstract to do something like it. You may quote scripture and follow up with a particularly dogmatic interpretation–but can you actually do it? This isn’t about proving that a homosexual relationship isn’t considered a moral option by Rome–it’s a given that you *believe *that. This is about you proving to me that my actual specific relationship with my partner is immoral despite the good that it has produced. This is about you proving to me that an evil tree can produce good fruit, that sometimes an evil means can in fact justify a good end.

Let me just say before you start: you’ll be fighting an uphill battle, because I don’t think you can do it. And again, I don’t actually think you should make the attempt: I don’t think you would enjoy the implications to your own morality if you did. I will simply say it again: my relationship with my partner has revealed itself to be a good thing, and it is recognized as such by the good fruit that it bears.

Keep in mind: I do not claim that my partner and I are good in ourselves. My claim is that the good in our relationship is the blessing and grace of God and not of our own devising.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED.)

Pleasure for its own sake has been chosen regardless – “a good God would want his creation to be happy” – and you choose the rules.

Prove it. Prove that I have chosen pleasure for its own sake.

Demonstrate where I have written that a good God would want his creation merely happy.

By the way, what do you think my relationship with my partner is like? Do you think we have an open relationship? Do think all we do is have orgy after orgy? That after we come back from church, we pick up random guys on the Westside Highway for a Judy Garland singalong and raunchy leather-clad sex? Or, since you invoke Sodom and Gomorrah, do you think that when the Fed-Ex man comes around, we invite some neighbors over to help us rape him? Do you think we live close to a school because we’re plotting to corrupt the children and abuse all the boys? Are we concocting HIV related biological warfare plans as we fold our immoral laundry? Do you think we’re committed to each other because the generally recognized unalloyed pleasure of paying the utility bills together far exceeds the pleasure of the one-night stands we would, of course, otherwise be having?

“No, Mark,” you may protest, “I don’t think those things at all. Those are ridiculous things. Your evil is more insidious. Your evil masquerades as good but is not actually good.”

Again: Prove it.

Evil may not be done that some good my come of it.

You are absolutely 100% positively correct. I would go farther: evil, being the lack of good, the absence of the good, cannot *produce *the good. When one sees good fruit, therefore, it is pretty clear: it came from a good tree.

Abu:

How typical that science should be misused over morality coupled with the blissful ignoring of the punishment of those in Sodom and Gomorrah for sodomy, from one who quotes Scripture.

Typical? This must be what they said to Galileo: how typical that science should be misused to determine that the Ptolemaic understanding of the universe is in error. Or perhaps this is what they said to explorers of the Americas: how typical that actual observation should be misconstrued to show that people with no heads and their faces on their torsos don’t exist.

For the sin of Sodom, see Ezekiel: pride, fullness of bread, and not strengthening the hand of the poor.

Abu:

The queer idea above that the belief that homosexual activity is always evil is based on bad science, illustrates well the flight from reality for what Carl Rodgers asserts: “I am the one who chooses…I am the one who determines the value of an experience for me.” (Cited by convert Dr Paul C Vitz, Psychology As Religion, Eerdmanns 1994, p 28). Dr Vitz has coined “selfism” as meaning reward for self as the only functional ethical principle in human motivation and personality in modern psychology.

First, I appreciate your pun.

Second, I figured “Selfism” must be some term of art or other, or at the very least, a phrase you appreciated that you glommed onto. I do it all the time myself…

Third, you will notice that not once have I characterized my understanding of morality as being based upon reward in any way.

Abu:

Since the moral law asserts true love and the procreation commanded by God: the unitive purpose without wilfully impeding the procreative purpose, it is a mirage to twist this into the biological utility of process theology.

A stress on biological utility is there, clear as day. The utility aspect of Rome’s natural law is what allows for any additional unitive understanding of sex. The utility is fundamental, the unity is incidental, despite your protests.

Abu:

Fantasising on “RC sexual morality”, denigration of Christ’s Church as the final arbiter, and the self-interpretation of Sacred Scripture may be pleasurable, and common in some circles, but one of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.”

Perrone says this because he is a Roman Catholic. Adherence to the pope is necessary for a Roman Catholic. I like the pope. I even appreciate the office of the pope and yearn for Christian unity (otherwise, why would I feel it valuable to continue this conversation with you?)–but, with the Orthodox and most Protestants, I don’t believe in Rome’s understanding of the papal office. Moreover, I have not seen anything in history or in the majority of the fathers that I have read that would convince me that Roman Catholic triumphalism and exceptionalism, as not-so-subtly articulated by Perrone above, is divinely ordained, commanded, or sanctioned.

By the by, I have nothing to say against the Church being an arbiter, but I don’t believe the Roman Church is the final arbiter. You do not make this distinction. I do. Your assertions of your faithfulness to Rome are great and I appreciate them as I appreciate anyone’s confession that they find joy in their faith. But your assertions of your adherence to the magersterium are not a particularly convincing argument for anything apart from your own appreciable zeal for Rome specifically. And I do appreciate it. I simply don’t share it.

Be well, my friend Abu!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[DysonSphere]

I wouldn’t even concede the first. Why must there be only one natural use for a certain thing, and how are we to determine properly what its purpose is? Other animals, notably monkeys, masturbate, and all other animals have sex outside of marriage.

Admittedly, what is natural for a monkey may not be natural for a human, but beyond intuition, how can it be argued?

Once you get that a particular practice is natural, then I concede, the comments on this board help, with a certain understanding of morality, to establish that homosexuality is wrong.

Dearly beloved friends,

A non-Christian may be prepared to concede that homosexual deviant acts are ‘unnatural’ in the sense that some things plainly have inherent functions (termed teleologies by philosphers). Thus to use one’s reproductive organs for purposes other than that for which they were intended (i.e. procreation) is manfestly unnatural.

However, whilst they might allow that homosexual genital acts are aberrant and unnatural, they would say that that does not necessarily make them wrong. They want to know how one leaps from unnatural to wrong. Thus, by way of example they will say that the bridge of the nose was not intended to hold glasses (an unnatural use), nevertheless, it is clearly not a ‘wrong’ thing to do. Again hair on the head is natures way of preventing heat loss, so to shave one’s head is unnatural and frustrates the function of hair. However, nobody would seriously argue that a No. 0 haircut was ‘wrong’. Likewise, they would contend that homosexual deviant acts may well be unnatural, or contrary to inherent functions, but that does not thereby render them wrong and improper.

Since it would be pointless to reference Sacred Scripture or the teaching of the Church, the authority of which atheists do not acknowledge, how can we respond to and refute these arguments by recourse to natural law reasoning only, demonstrating irrefragibly that homosexual genital acts are not only unnatural but wrong and improper also?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Grace & Peace!

Before I respond to my friend Abu later in the day, I wanted to quickly respond to this. Portrait, I think we must be very very cautious here. You are revealing why Natural Law (particularly as understood by Aquinas) is perhaps not such a good universal yardstick. Here’s why–Cicero was speaking as a Roman, as a man who believed that Rome and the Roman Empire *was *the world, or at the very least, the civilized world (whatever civilized means–as it has meant different things at different times in different places). Cicero’s intuition regarding this one law is predicated on his belief that what Rome is is the standard for the world. The one law of Cicero is little more than an idealized version of Roman moral and cultural mores. I think Aquinas and other Natural Law proponents suffer from a similar cultural bias (which arises out of our Imperial Roman cultural heritage). When we say “Natural Law” it is very difficult for us to separate out from the Universal Law the Western Cultural notions by which we attempt to understand ourselves.

For instance, there is a tribe which practices a coming of age ritual in which the young men must ingest the reproductive fluid of the older men in a ceremonial context. Why? Because it is imperative for the new members of the tribe to receive seed from the old members so that they can be fertile. Nonetheless, according to our concepts of natural law, these people are committing abominable homosexual acts. But in reality, they are engaging in a ritual practice which is meant to preserve their way of life. I could also bring up the “two-spirit” people of some Native American tribes–men or women who assume the cultural and sexual roles of the opposite gender and who often engage in or fulfill various shamanic duties.

You could argue that the way of life of such people is abjectly sinful because it is counter to natural law. But the argument begins to look more and more like a cultural argument and less and less like a moral argument.

Moreover, the formula with which I am familiar from Christianity of “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism” does not include “One Natural Moral Law”. And when Jesus says, “This is my commandment that ye love one another,” he does not add, “by following the dictates of the natural moral law.” The Natural Moral Law is an understanding of the universal law written on our hearts, or a useful guide to it, but it is just that–it is not the law itself, but an understanding of that law colored by our particular Western cultural proclivities and prejudices. It is valuable, but it is not absolute. Consequently, as we learn more and more about who we are in relationship with each other and with God, it should not surprise us that our ideas of the universal law might need re-adjusting. Not that the universal law is wrong or flawed, but that our understanding of it is either in error or incomplete.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Dear Mark,

Cordial greetings and please accept my apologies for taking so long to reply to your post, but I have been quite heavily engaged with one thing or another over the past couple of days.

My purpose in citing Cicero was only to illustrate that as a pagan he acknowledged the natural moral law and anticipated St. Paul in so doing (cf. Rom. 2: 14-15). Moreover, it was something far greater than “an idealized version of Roman moral and cultural mores” that this sagacious man had in mind, for he speaks of this law as being “constant” and “everlasting” and actually clearly distinguishes it from the “decree of Senate” (i.e. Rome). Again he talks of this “one law” as being “everlasting and unchangeable, extending to all nations and all times” - not merely to the times of the Roman dynasty.

On the contrary natural law can be separated from “Western cultural notions”, for natural law, whilst unwritten, is known universally by all men who have the faculty of reasoning.

It was because of the natural moral law that Cain knew it was wrong to commit murder before the Fifth Commandment was even declared by Almighty God to Moses. Moreover, a Nazi could not have pleaded in his defence that he did not recognize the authority of the bible, because even the most evil of the Nazis still had the use of reason and it is reason that discovers the natural moral law for each man. An immoral act, such as homosexual deviant sex, violates the natural moral law even if it conforms to the laws of the country. Thus the Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany (1935) violated the natural moral law because they deprived the Jews of their citizenship and, alas, paved the way for confiscation of personal property, deporatation, incarceration, and doomed many to the concentration camps.

Mark, the natural moral law is more than a “useful guide”, it is a law that is as equally binding upon men as the Decalougue, indeed it was antecedent to the Ten Commandments and is none other than the eternal law of God. This is why men of no faith who are ignorant of the Commandments are still accountable; their own judgments and actions are an acknowledgement that the natural moral law has been stamped upon their constitution by their Creator. For whenever they attempt to follow the dictates of conscience, they are confronted with the obligation to bring their conduct into conformity with this law that is revealed in them. Actually our conscience is an evidence of our indesructible moral nature and a very real proof that God bears witness to Himself in our hearts. Conscience is that innate faculty that enables a man to distinguish between right and wrong and which passes an impartial judgment upon his conduct.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

I wouldn’t even concede the first. Why must there be only one natural use for a certain thing, and how are we to determine properly what its purpose is? Other animals, notably monkeys, masturbate, and all other animals have sex outside of marriage.

Admittedly, what is natural for a monkey may not be natural for a human, but beyond intuition, how can it be argued?

Once you get that a particular practice is natural, then I concede, the comments on this board help, with a certain understanding of morality, to establish that homosexuality is wrong.

Dear DysonSphere,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your comments above.

Drawing a comparison with the animal kingdom is inapplicable since the natural moral law does not apply to animals because they are not endowed with the faculty of reason as we are. Thus their sexual behaviour is inconsequential, since they shall not be held accountable for their actions.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Portrait, I very much appreciate your response.

My purpose in citing Cicero was only to illustrate that as a pagan he acknowledged the natural moral law and anticipated St. Paul in so doing (cf. Rom. 2: 14-15). Moreover, it was something far greater than “an idealized version of Roman moral and cultural mores” that this sagacious man had in mind, for he speaks of this law as being “constant” and “everlasting” and actually clearly distinguishes it from the “decree of Senate” (i.e. Rome). Again he talks of this “one law” as being “everlasting and unchangeable, extending to all nations and all times” - not merely to the times of the Roman dynasty.

I also respect Cicero–I found him difficult but rewarding to translate as a schoolboy! And you may be right, here. But given Imperial Rome’s considerable estimation of itself, I think the idea that an eternal ethic would not look like core Roman values to a Roman such as Cicero would be a stretch. Much like an American tea-party sort of patriot would be very unlikely to say, “No, American political ideals are in fact not eternal values.”

On the contrary natural law can be separated from “Western cultural notions”, for natural law, whilst unwritten, is known universally by all men who have the faculty of reasoning.

Here we agree–it’s* possible* to separate the two. But where we disagree is: have we separated the two. My argument, in part, is that the RC notion of natural law is colored by classical Western cultural norms, and that, moreover, the RCC seems generally uninterested in distinguishing between the norm and the universal law written on our hearts.

Moreover, I do not understand this law as you do. Here’s what I mean: to all indications you see natural law and the universal law on our hearts as equivalent. I see natural law as a set of principles which mediate the universal law. In other words:

You:
natural law = law on our hearts

Me:
natural law : law on our hearts : : description of sunset : sunset

These differing understandings have consequences, of course. It seems to me that the law on our hearts is not something to be explicated in order to be known, but something to be lived in order to be known. But it seems, from your posts, that to you, the law on our hearts can be completely explicated by natural law philosophy, an understanding of which can then allow us to live it with the caveat that any supposed living of the law on our hearts that does not accord with its explication in natural law philosophy is not actually representative of the law on our hearts. Which, to me, is like saying, “any experience of a sunset which does not accord with the description of a sunset as contained in document A is not an actual experience of a sunset.”

In all of this, I am not saying that natural law philosophy is useless or of no value. No! I’m actually saying it is valuable as a means by which the law on our hearts can be apprehended. However, it must be recognized as a means of understanding, a form of mediation, and we must be humble enough to realize that because it represents an apprehension of the universal law on our hearts, it must admit change and correction when it is clear to us that our understanding (as embodied in natural law philosophy) does not accord with the reality (the universal law written on our hearts).

Thus the Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany (1935) violated the natural moral law because they deprived the Jews of their citizenship and, alas, paved the way for confiscation of personal property, deporatation, incarceration, and doomed many to the concentration camps.

You will get no argument from me against the assertion that the Nuremberg Laws were immoral. But you may get different reasons–for me, the loss of citizenship, the deportation, the confiscation etc. are all symptoms of the root disregard for human dignity on which those unjust laws were founded. And that root disregard existed because of a fundamental refusal by human beings to love as we should. (I would further argue that the same root disregard and lack of charity is at work in a few recent US laws which I believe to be gravely immoral…)

Mark, the natural moral law is more than a “useful guide”, it is a law that is as equally binding upon men as the Decalougue, indeed it was antecedent to the Ten Commandments and is none other than the eternal law of God.

I hope my comments earlier in this post better explain my position to you.

Thank you again, Portrait!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Portrait]

continuing:

You say, Portrait,

For example, I believe that homosexual liaisons are self-destructive and harmful to both physical and mental well-being, at least in the long term and do not therefore promote human flourishing. You, on the contrary believe the very opposite old boy. Now how are we to decide which of our opinion’s is right and valid? Of course I agree that people should flourish if by that you mean that people should prosper physically and emotionally etc., but people do differ as to what will enable a person to flourish.

So we agree that ‘flourishing’ means something like ‘prosper physically and emotionally’?? That gives us an objective standard. Let’s apply it.

My daughter and partner;

1. Are made happy by their relationship.
2. Feel great love for each other.
3. Get pleasure mental and physical from their relationship.
4. Are enabled by their relationship to be better citizens.
5. Contribute, as a pair, to their interaction with other family members.
6. Enable each other to develop the good qualities that they have.
7. Help each other through bad times.
   8 etc
   9 etc
   10 etc
   11 This has been going on for 20+ years

If we cannot describe their relationship as ‘flourishing’ then I am speaking a different language to you.

But you accepted all the above in previous posts.

And yet, and yet, you think that God has taken agin them. Fair enough - their relationship enables them to flourish but God condemns them - that is a logically consistent statement. But you cannot say that they are not flourishing surely?

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and hope all is well dear friend.

It does not give us an objective standard because we may not be agreed as to what will be conducive to a man prospering physically and emotionally. Since I believe that homosexual aberrant acts do not contrubute, at least in the long term, to man’s physical and mental well-being; indeed I believe the very opposite to be the case. Thus we have run up against an insuperable difficulty before I even begin to consider the rest of your argument. Moreover, I rather think that because of my Catholic convictions this is an insurmountable hurdle of no insignificant size.

The yardstick with which you are appraising your daughter’s union is a most unsound and unsafe one because it totally omits any reference to God’s moral law. Therefore the criterion that you use to authenticate it is woefully insufficient. Why my dear chap, at this rate we could justify all manner of of irregular and unnatural liaisons. One could argue in favour of polygamy, for a polygamist could probably affirm all of the “ingredients” that you refer to. Moreover, some women would be more than happy to be party to such an irregular and immoral arrangement, they may even claim that it helps them to prosper emotionally and gives them a sense of fulfilment. They would reject your opinion that it does not treat them equitably as risible and uninformed . So here we are again, back to our old quagmire of competing opinions and no means of authoritatively deciding which of them is correct, in other words the moral bedlam of relativism. Sorry old boy but all of this is so unavailing and intellectually unsatisfying, give me the magisterium any day.

Laurie, regardless of what may be said respecting your daughter’s union, it is not enabling her to prosper and blossom spiritually, as her Maker intended, because it is at variance with both the natural and Divine law of which he is the author. As Sacred Scripture says: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” (Proverbs 14: 12).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[DysonSphere]

Fair enough. So what do we have, besides our intuition, to guide us? What agreed-upon basis will non-Christians have within which to test these assertions: “homosexuality is unnatural, and/or immoral”?

Dear DysonSphere,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your comments above.

Drawing a comparison with the animal kingdom is inapplicable since the natural moral law does not apply to animals because they are not endowed with the faculty of reason as we are. Thus their sexual behaviour is inconsequential, since they shall not be held accountable for their actions.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Fair enough. So what do we have, besides our intuition, to guide us? What agreed-upon basis will non-Christians have within which to test these assertions: “homosexuality is unnatural, and/or immoral”?

Dear DysonSphere,

Thankyou most kindly for your response.

The common ground for the Catholic and non-Christian, as regards the unnaturalness and hence immorality of homosexual genital acts, is the natural moral law. Having said that, owing to man’s inborn sinfulnes and revolt against his Maker, he may not always be willing or able, as this thread evinces all too clearly, to acknowledge the unnatural and immoral nature of homosexual conduct. For all manner of reasons, men may wish to stifle or supress the truth which they instinctively know in their innermost being. As our Catechism states, “*The precepts of the natural law are not percieved by every one clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known by everyone *with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error” (CCC, para. 1960).

However, deny it as they may, the fact remains that men do have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural. Thus we perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. That there would be a general consensus about this demonstrates that ethical intuition is not some religious delusion or polemic invented by the Church, but a self evident truth that is apparent to all.

Now by parity of reasoning the same is applicable to the case of homosexual deviant behaviour. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman and vice-versa. Hence men have a corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do respecting bestiality - that it is wrong because it is unnatural conduct.

Hope this helps by way of clarification.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS A warm welcome to CAF.

 

[Bkanning]

Hello Bucket.

I am the friend and not yet convinced. Of course I agree that rape etc is immoral and are wrong uses of sex. Obviously then we cannot say that any type of sex is OK. But it is a ‘far step’ from that to saying that sex should therefore only be used to express love between a man and woman in a committed relationship. I might say, indeed I do, that as straight sex can express love and so can gay sex perhaps both are OK.

Rape etc cause harm but faithful gay sex appears not to do so [the reverse in fact] - you cannot really make any equivalence between them.

Thanks for your thoughts

Laurie

Catholic teaching does not say tha sex “only be used to express love between a man and a woman in a committed relationship.” That is oversimplifying it. Sex is to be used as an expression of love and as a means of procreation, which is the greatest act of love imaginable. If you remove the possibility of procreation, the act loses a large portion of the meaning that God, the One who created reproduction, intended it to have. Homosexuality can not result in procreation, and so while a committed expression of love may exist between a homosexual couple, the fullness of the meaning and purpose of intercourse is not realized.

 

[Nec5]

Nec5

Polygamy is not recommended because it does not treat women equally.
Incest wrong for biological reasons.

No such reasons apply to monogamous gay sex.

1. You cannot condemn all polygamy for the actions of some polygamists any more than you can condemn normal marriage for actions of thousands of drunken wife beaters?

What about multiple men and one woman marriages? Different strokes, right? Plus the kid has a greater safety net and a wider more diverse pool of parental influences from which to draw. You judgment is subjective and discriminatory.

1. As for incest, that’s easy. First, there is no 100% guarantee that offspring will be malformed. Even if we accept the biological diversity argument, then the incest couple should be allowed to adopt. Just like homosexual couples, they cannot have kids and can provide a loving home for these children. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[RobGeoAnthony]

Herein is a problem that is created with the premise of this thread. To wit, Jesus, second person of the Trinity, that is, God incarnate, said nothing against homosexuals in his three years of public ministry. On the contrary, he lived and taught among the outcasts of society. It would appear that God did not have a problem with homosexuality.

The scriptural passages that are cited against this state fall into two categories. One, is the patriarchial and nomadic Hebrews who were concerned with clear, distinct bloodlines, and continuation of dynastic tribes. The second, from the Epistle of James has to do with male and female temple priests in mystery religions such as Astarte and Demeter which involved those temple priests and priestesses in prostitution as part of the rites to ensure fertility.

The fact is most gay men and women are content with one consort and yes, there are others who are bed hoppers.

Fidelity and loyalty are to be praised. Sooner or later, the BS concerning this one part of the human condition will go by the boards. There is no reason for it.

Incidentally, I have read the new catechism. I would certainly hope that most would understand that the passage referring to a man should not lay with another man, etc. refers to free men. There never was a provision that covered slaves and concubines.

 

[RobGeoAnthony]

Catholic teaching does not say tha sex “only be used to express love between a man and a woman in a committed relationship.” That is oversimplifying it. Sex is to be used as an expression of love and as a means of procreation, which is the greatest act of love imaginable. If you remove the possibility of procreation, the act loses a large portion of the meaning that God, the One who created reproduction, intended it to have. Homosexuality can not result in procreation, and so while a committed expression of love may exist between a homosexual couple, the fullness of the meaning and purpose of intercourse is not realized.

===============================================================

Bunk. Any man and any woman is fully capable of being a father or mother. Moreover, men are now able to have sperm taken at a fertility clinic and have an ovum fertilized and carried by a surrogate mother. Which gets into the interesting slippery slope of your position above. Namely, men and women can be parents, in or out of marriage which, of course, includes homosexuals.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

I appreicate your remarks

As I stated in my last post;

My daughter and partner;

1. Are made happy by their relationship.
2. Feel great love for each other.
3. Get pleasure mental and physical from their relationship.
4. Are enabled by their relationship to be better citizens.
5. Contribute, as a pair, to their interaction with other family members.
6. Enable each other to develop the good qualities that they have.
7. Help each other through bad times.
   8 etc
   9 etc
   10 etc
   11 This has been going on for 20+ years

Now all of these statements, used in their everyday sense cannot be contested. That is my objective standard. As I understand it, you have accepted my judgement on this matter. And so in the usual sense of the term – they are flourishing.

You also think there is something more. Because their relationship is ‘not natural’ [as defined by the Catholic Church] she cannot blossom spiritually. So your view is that, although their relationship is a wonderful, loving, positive, flourishing one [using these words in their normal sense], God requires more and therefore the relationship is immoral – to Hell with the perverts! Well maybe that is what God says – in which case he is a very perverse and evil entity.

You will reply that he is good but his goodness is compatible with condemning to Hell people who are in wonderful and loving relationships. That he is ‘good but not as we know it’! Fine by me, provided you realise that ‘good but not as we know it’ is, using the terms with their usual meaning, the same as arbitrary and very wicked.

Please read De Volente on evil trees and fruit to see the point made a far more elegant way than I have managed and from a religious perspective.

Regards

Laurie

Is there anything more to say:

My morality, based on what promotes human flourishing, allows gay sex between faithful partners. Yours based on what your church calls ‘natural’ says it is wrong.

I do not think that a good God would do anything other than approve human flourishing [usual meaning] but you think that you cannot flourish at a deeper level if you are acting ‘unnaturally’.

We have discussed the notion of ‘unnatural’ and why this necessarily implies ‘wrong’. We have discussed the notion of ‘flourishing’ and I acknowledged that it is not 100% clear.

Is there anything more we can usefully say - except ‘thanks’?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

BK - you say.

Homosexuality can not result in procreation, and so while a committed expression of love may exist between a homosexual couple, the fullness of the meaning and purpose of intercourse is not realized.

But that is not quite correct because infertile couples and those past childbearing age are allowed to have sex to express their love. So now you have to introduce ***another criterion *which allows this but rules out gay couples expressing their love physically. It starts to get rather arbitrary and odd.
**
Polygamy, [Incest] and FlourisingPolygamy is not wrong under all circumstances. If there was a severe imbalence of the sexes then it might be OK because it would enable more flourishing. In our society it would be wrong for a man or a woman to have more that their fair share of partners! Also it is hard to see how, if a man has more than one wife, there can be equality between the man and the women. Finally, in our society, there would be the problem of jealousy.

But, you see, in all this my touchstone is ‘flourishing’ and, as in the sex-imbalence case, if polygamy promoted it, then I would favour it.

The same applies to incest, I think we can show that allowing it would be harmful to flourishing - I’ve gone into details elsewhere.

So, using flourishing as my moral touchstone, we can rule faithful gay sex in and, in our society, polygamy and incest out.

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and welcome back my dear chap.

Your conception of God’s character is seriously wanting and sadly distorted in so far as you are ignoring the holiness of God at the expense of His love. The Christian God is not some celestial Santa Claus or some indulgent grandfather figure who’s sword is always in its sheath and who is ever ready to wink at sin. The view that there is no more to be said of God (if God there be) than that He is infinitely forbearing and loving is a common delusion of modern man. Whilst one cannot imagine the topic of God’s holiness and indignation against sin ever being popular, there is, nevertheless, more references in Sacred Scripture to the anger, fury and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness! Moreover, would a God who took as much pleasure in sin as he did in good be a good God?; Would a God who did not react adversely to evil be morally perfect? Surely not. Therefore God cannot countenance homosexual deviant acts because they are at variance with His own law and are accordingly abhorrent to His moral perfection, as is bestiality, auto-eroticism and sexual desire directed towards children. You are, I fear, beholding the goodness of God but leaving out His severity and holiness.

What I said was that some homosexual liaisons can be loving but that their love quality was insufficient to justify them and that quality of love is not the only yardstick by which to measure what is good and right. Moreover, I also stated that they were incompatible with true love because they are incompatible with God’s law. Thus whilst I would accept that some are loving inasmuch as those involved do feel deeply for one another, I could not descibe these unions by the adjectives “positive” and “wonderful” because they are unnatural and immoral from the Christian standpoint.

God is most decidedly not a “perverse and evil entity”, if you understand His character and attributes correctly. Would such a malicious being send His only beloved Son into the world to save and redeem mankind? Sorry my dear fellow but I do not recognise the god of which you speak, for he most certainly bears no resemblance to the God I love and worship.

As I have said previously, God does not “send” men into eternal punishment, rather they seal their own doom by a life of habitual sin and impenitence. If any man is debared finally from the kingdom of God then it is because he has exercised his own free will and chosen to give himsellf over to sin. Man is not an automaton but a person made in God’s image and endowed with free will; since all of life is a state of probation his actions now, for good or evil, must necessarily determine his destiny later.

You are quite right my dear friend, I think we have reached an impasse and thus there is little point in prolonging our dialogue any further.

Laurie, it has been a thoroughly engrossing and challenging debate but also a most enjoyable one. Moreover, it has, for me at least, been a most enlightening experience since this is the first time that I have argued against homosexual behaviour on the basis of natural law morality. Having engaged in this dialogue, I am now more informed, having learned so much from the (name removed by moderator)ut of my fellow Catholic brethren. May I take this opportunity to thank them for their very learned contributiuons to this discussion; they have been of immense service in helping me to grasp this fasinating but complex topic more clearly.

Finally, may I thank you dear chap for the many good natured exchanges that we have had in this thread and the previous ones. We have demonstrated that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable and to avoid any breach of charity, regardless of the considerable differences that exist between us on the topic that is under review.

However, it is with a sense of deep sadness that I bow out for, notwithstanding our lengthy discussion, I have failed to cause you to have a change of heart, not that it is about wining a clever argument or, God forbid, overwhelming one’s opponent. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that I have the truth on my side, but only because it is God’s truth and not my own private subjective opinions, which are worthless if they are not consonant with that truth.

Thankyou for your courtesy also my dear friend and I hope there will be another “Gibson v. Portrait” on the boards in the not too distant future.

Blessings on you and may the peace of God be yours now and always.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat: