Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Laurie_Gibson]

I am not interested in the proportion of gay people who are in faithful relationships. I am simply arguing that those that are in such a relationship are acting morally.

So I am not defining or describing anything. You as a Catholic think EVERYONE is a sinner but that does not stop you [nor should it] talking about what a good life should be like.

It is really a very simple point. I muse that you cannot see it.

 

[Abu]

Laurie Gibson
You as a Catholic think EVERYONE is a sinner

A perfect example of a non sequitur: that a Catholic ipso facto thinks that everyone is a sinner! As to venial sin, yes, except the Blessed Virgin, but what this poster means is grave sin. A great example of what homomania can do to reason! The homomaniacs never can produce any serious studies that support their prejudices.

djeter has further punctured the bubble of deceit and camouflage, and all the selfists can do is to repeat ad nauseam – sodomy and lesbianism are morally O.K. – they make their own morality.
We have the inestimable benefit of using reason and observation, affirmed by faith (as Rodney Stark testifies in The Victory of Reason, post #290) as the basis for the morality, and the building, of Western civilization, now in chaos due to the black night of relativism involved in all the movements against the Creator God and His handiwork.

The fact that certain regimes, like the warriors of the Moguls or the Aztec priests murdered and pillaged does not demonstrate the lack of the natural moral law any more than it demonstrates that there is no God. It does demonstrate the effects of Original Sin which has made it more difficult to reason on, and to follow conscience according to, the natural moral law.

The proofs for the existence of God reveal the emptiness of denial, and the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth demonstrates the fact that He is God. The blindness of selfism and the pastime of concocting self-serving ethical systems will continue regardless.
So it is good to drink the nectar of truth from the Holy Father.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Pope benedict XVI on Thomas Aquinas: Inter-Relation Of Philosophy, Theology
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2010/06/thomas-aquinas-inter-relation-of.html
Excerpt:
St. Thomas’ moral theology retains great relevance in its affirmation that “the theological and moral virtues of man are rooted in human nature”, said Pope Benedict. "Divine Grace accompanies, supports and encourages ethical commitment but, according to St. Thomas, all men and women, believers and non-believers, are of themselves called to recognise the requirements of human nature as expressed in natural law, and to draw inspiration therefrom when formulating positive law; that is, the laws produced by civil and political authorities to regulate human society.

“When natural law and the responsibility it implies are denied,” he added, “the way is thrown dramatically open to ethical relativism at an individual level, and to totalitarianism at a political level. Defending the universal rights of man and affirming the absolute value of the dignity of the person presupposes a foundation: and is not this foundation natural law, with the non-negotiable values it contains?”.

“Thomas”, the Holy Father concluded, “presents us with a broad and trusting view of human reason. Broad, because it is not limited to the area of empirical-scientific reason but open to all of existence and therefore also to the fundamental and inescapable questions of human life; trusting, because human reason, especially if it welcomes the inspiration of Christian faith, promotes a civilisation which recognises the dignity of the person, the inviolability of his rights and the cogency of his duties”.

 

[John21652]

Laurie, you seem to think that because you cannot, or will not see that homosexual sex is morally wrong according to Natural Law, that it is not wrong. However, by definition, homosexual sex is outside the boundaries set by Natural Law and that simple fact is what makes it wrong. The wrongness is judged according to how humanity knows, understands and acknowledges the concept of Natural Law. Once that concept is acknowledged, the logical conclusion is that homosexual sex is wrong. It is wrong because the behaviour is outside the norm as dictated by Natural Law. This behaviour is anathema to what all Natural Law theorists see, understand, acknowledge and discern as the Natural Law. That’s it. Nothing more to say about it. If you continue to argue to the contrary, then you are rejecting the theory of Natural Law. Natural Law is an objective measure of what is good and bad, right and wrong. If you reject that objective measure, which you seem to be doing, then you are inviting into the resultant void, moral relativity. One of your recent posts hints that this is what you accept. Moral Relativity is a precursor to social cohesion breaking down and again we see evidence of this happening in todays secularised western societies. The acceptance of homosexual acts is just one more breakaway from the Natural Law which has governed much of the development of our western civilisation.

You seem to think that because one couple remains faithfull to one another and supposedly ‘flourish’, then the homosexual acts are OK. In stating that, you forget that Natural Law regulates both individual behaviours and wider societal behaviours. If the former fails, them the latter must fail as a logical consequence. Proponents of Natural Law argue, with statistics and with anecdotal evidence, that society is being harmed by the adoption of so called progressive moralities. Well, a simple look around us would probably suffice to safely say that that observation is proving to be correct! The acceptance of homoseual sex is another brick pulled from the wall…

 

[DysonSphere]

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.

I must admit that sex with animals does indeed seem unnatural, as well as possibly cruel, but I cannot say that I am certain in these assertions by any solid moral basis or intuition. I do intuitively conclude that humans having sex with animals is wrong. I also intuitively conclude that there is nothing wrong, all things being equal, with a man having sex with another consenting man. If my intuition is flawed in the second case, it may very well be flawed in the first case.

What is the basis of argument for homosexual activity being wrong or even unnatural?

Thank you, by the way, for your warm welcome, and for your direct and clear responses.

 

[djeter]

I am not interested in the proportion of gay people who are in faithful relationships. I am simply arguing that those that are in such a relationship are acting morally.

So I am not defining or describing anything. You as a Catholic think EVERYONE is a sinner but that does not stop you [nor should it] talking about what a good life should be like.

It is really a very simple point. I muse that you cannot see it.

Laurie:

And I am not denying what you are saying based on a statistical argument.

You posit the healthiness and flourishing of homsexual relations based on those who are in “faithful” partnerships, as if somehow acting like married couples makes it all good. In addition to the scriptural and theological arguments made against homosexual relations there exists a large body of sociological evidence that points to the elevated risks of any number of diseases and psychological traumas when homosexual inclinations are acted upon.

So it is not just some idle philosophical point that Catholic teaching is making concerning the moral disorder of same-sex desires and the sinfulness of same-sex acts. I am demonstrating to you the real evidence that exists in the sociological sphere for those who act on their homosexual inclinations. In and of themselves those inclinations are not sinful but they have the potential to be so.

I’m sure a case can be made for the healthiness and flourishing of any addiction if you could find the right control group. That does not mean you can create a “good life” out of it.

It’s really a very simple point. I muse that you cannot see it …

dj

 

[djeter]

What is the basis of argument for homosexual activity being wrong or even unnatural?

“Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination,” is a wise and pastorally sensitive statement fully in accord with the doctrine of the Church. It declines the suggestion that there is a contradiction, or even a tension, between love and truth. Speaking the truth, and inviting all of us to live in the truth, is love’s duty.

Fr. Richard Neuhaus wrote a review of the statement when it first came out. His thoughts and selections from the statement are here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/homosexuality-and-loves-duty/

Another paper (Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data) by Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S. of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family discusses some of the recent scientific findings on the causes of homosexuality in the context of a Christian anthropology.

After reviewing the major findings in the empirical literature, the discussion focuses on how such an anthropology can account for these findings without compromising the traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Of particular importance here are notions of original sin, fallen nature, the sexual difference, and the virtue of chastity. You can find that here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/

Your questions are all answered in either of these posts.

dj

 

[larkin31]

Laurie:

And I am not denying what you are saying based on a statistical argument.

You posit the healthiness and flourishing of homsexual relations based on those who are in “faithful” partnerships, as if somehow acting like married couples makes it all good. In addition to the scriptural and theological arguments made against homosexual relations there exists a large body of sociological evidence that points to the elevated risks of any number of diseases and psychological traumas when homosexual inclinations are acted upon.

So it is not just some idle philosophical point that Catholic teaching is making concerning the moral disorder of same-sex desires and the sinfulness of same-sex acts. I am demonstrating to you the real evidence that exists in the sociological sphere for those who act on their homosexual inclinations. In and of themselves those inclinations are not sinful but they have the potential to be so.

I’m sure a case can be made for the healthiness and flourishing of any addiction if you could find the right control group. That does not mean you can create a “good life” out of it.

It’s really a very simple point. I muse that you cannot see it …

dj

homosexual orientation is “an addiction”?

is asexuality an “addiction”?

is heterosexuality an “addiction”?

I can’t see how any of these is true.

 

[larkin31]

I know that this is 21 pages into this discussion, and I have only read the first and the last, but I need to say this: “Natural Law” is a human idea that exists nowhere except in human thinking. It does not exist in nature and has no bearing on the empirical real world. Nothing can be “proved wrong” by “Natural Law” except the thinking of the person trying to use it in an argument.

 

[djeter]

homosexual orientation is “an addiction”?

is asexuality an “addiction”?

is heterosexuality an “addiction”?

I can’t see how any of these is true.

I wasn’t arguing for homosexuality as addiction above, if you read carefully. I added a thought that depending on a control group you could make the case for the healthiness and flourishing of any addiction. Cigarette smoking could “calm the nerves” make you happier, etc. etc.

dj

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Laurie:

And I am not denying what you are saying based on a statistical argument.

You posit the healthiness and flourishing of homsexual relations based on those who are in “faithful” partnerships, as if somehow acting like married couples makes it all good. In addition to the scriptural and theological arguments made against homosexual relations there exists a large body of sociological evidence that points to the elevated risks of any number of diseases and psychological traumas when homosexual inclinations are acted upon.

So it is not just some idle philosophical point that Catholic teaching is making concerning the moral disorder of same-sex desires and the sinfulness of same-sex acts. I am demonstrating to you the real evidence that exists in the sociological sphere for those who act on their homosexual inclinations. In and of themselves those inclinations are not sinful but they have the potential to be so.

I’m sure a case can be made for the healthiness and flourishing of any addiction if you could find the right control group. That does not mean you can create a “good life” out of it.

It’s really a very simple point. I muse that you cannot see it …

dj

Djeter, my friend, if I may interject–my problem with drawing the conclusions you draw from the statistics is perhaps similar to Laurie’s: there is no necessary causal relationship between disease and homosexuality. Partly because there is actually no necessary or sine qua non sexual act which defines homosexual physical intimacy (with reference to venereal disease) and partly because the exposure to these diseases (both mental and venereal) has more to do with issues of continence and commitment which are issues in the heterosexual community as well and have nothing to do with sexuality per se.

However, in the gay community there is a tendency to confuse the freedom to be completely who we are (which includes our sexuality) as license to do what we want when various negative, repressive and/or overtly oppressive “normative” social influences are rejected in order to more fully become who we are (I mention these influences not to excuse the behavior, but to trace it’s impetus). One has therein a recipe for lots of irresponsibility and lots of unnecessary pain. Hence continence and commitment become bigger issues. There are those in the gay community who would think that I’m being a prude or repressive or too assimilationist in saying what I’ve just said, but I clearly disagree. Gay liberation and “coming out” become a grotesque parody of liberation and freedom when based on indulgence and not wholeness or the pursuit of the flourishing that I have described in previous posts (and which Abu and others consistently [intentionally?] misunderstand–by the way, Abu, I do not reject the authority of scripture–I question the absolute validity of your hermeneutic. That’s all. Nice chatting with you!).

Which is all just to say that human broken-ness is at the root of those sad statistics, djeter, not homosexuality qua homosexuality. As such, they register as the record of people failing to be what they are called to be not because they are homosexual and engage in homosexual acts, but because they are people falling and failing in precisely the ways people generally fall and fail. What those statistics do not comment on at all is the possibility of a loving, committed homosexual couple to be virtuous not in spite of but because of their relationship, bearing good fruit as a result. Those statistics neither affirm nor deny this possibility. It is up to experience and observation to demonstrate whether such a possibility is real–and experience and observation have both indicated that it is.

By the way, if people have not checked out djeter’s blog (there’s a link in his sig), they should do so. His writings and the writings of those he chooses to post are nothing if not thoughtful and thought-provoking. You may not agree with him all the time (as I do not!), but you will have encountered something substantial, meaningful, engaging and edifying. What more could you want?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[larkin31]

I wasn’t arguing for homosexuality as addiction above, if you read carefully. I added a thought that depending on a control group you could make the case for the healthiness and flourishing of any addiction. Cigarette smoking could “calm the nerves” make you happier, etc. etc.

dj

but homosexuality is not an addiction, so why are you using this category?

 

[momor]

Finally morality is based on empathy. If I did not acknowledge you and care about your happiness and pain, what reason could I have to act in an ethical way towards you? Take now a faithful gay couple who by all ordinary standards are flourishing and happy – you acknowledge this happens – whose happiness you would celebrate in the usual way – a morality condemns them because of some objective standard which it has dredged up from the middle ages – that is enough to show the morality has lost its way.

Please forgive me for jumping in here. I have come lately to this thread and I’m trying to catch up but I couldn’t let this go by.

It seems to me that morality has to apply equally to all people to be moral. How can homosexuality be moral if were all of us to practice it, the human race would die out? It seems clear to me that there is a natural moral law which makes homosexual sex an aberration to be avoided/discouraged. Encouragement of such relationships can only be morally subjective and relative, never objectively good, especially if your standard of ethics and morality is that which leads to human flourishing.

 

[antunesaa]

Grace & Peace!

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.

Have you ever wondered why this particular tribe never left their atavistic way of living and are in an evolution dead-end? Isn’t it because they can’t identify the Natural Law, or, if they can, they do not take the steps to live by it?

Hey, Portrait is not saying that on occasion people cannot fail to identify the Natural Law. The point is that, if enough people fail to do it, bad things will happen. The fact that these absurd rituals survive only in very small and isolated communities is strong evidence that the Natural Law allows for “human flourishing” and ignorance of it means a return to an atavistic state. Unless, of course, you think that these people should be left alone and live their average 30-year long lives in perfect harmony with plants and beasts.

There are many other cases where these absurd practices indeed prevent isolated communities from developing. Cannibalism, for instance, is known to induce Kreutzfeld-Jacob, the mad-cow disease. And the examples go on.

On the other end of the spectrum, there’s the modern Western societies, which are progressively abandoning the dictates of the Natural Law. It is no wonder that, at the same time, the share of European Christians (including Catholics) is decreasing fast in the context of the entire Christianity. Christianity is moving from the West (Europe, some parts of the US) to other places (Latin America, Africa and Asia). At the same time, particularly in Europe, there is a tide of foreigners who will make sure that the Natural Law will, again, reign in large communities.

 

[DysonSphere]

I have now read in detail the first article, and will comment briefly upon it. The preface of the article’s reasoning upon a “natural law” frames the discussion upon a strikingly, though, considering the author, unsurprisingly, Christian context, quoting Genesis. The wonderful order that is apparent in union between male and female, however, need not be exclusive. There is no reason to think that only one combination (male and female) is necessarily preferred over other combinations, simply because that combination is “dignified” or “good”, as I am prepared to admit it is.

A fairly narrow scriptural defense (God made them to be fruitful and multiply) and a comparably narrow Christian framework, seems to be necessary to defend this view, as well as other views (with which I also disagree) such as on contraception and masturbation. For example, marriage, as a divine institution, cannot, as far as I can see, be defended solely within the context of a natural framework. And it seems that homosexual unions, where they are exclusive and loving, can exhibit the same virtues, empirically, as a heterosexual relationship where, for whatever reason, there is no natural possibility of childbirth. The distinctions between these two scenarios (homosexual, barren heterosexual), however relevant they may be to certain Catholics, appear trivial to non-Christians, and even to many Catholics like myself.

I will consider the second article, though it looks very technical. The first article was not helpful in providing reasons non-Christians would find compelling. To provide an argument for homosexuality being evil, that would be compelling to non-Christians, or even to more liberal Christians, the article would need to be seriously revised, and would need to include original arguments.

“Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination,” is a wise and pastorally sensitive statement fully in accord with the doctrine of the Church. It declines the suggestion that there is a contradiction, or even a tension, between love and truth. Speaking the truth, and inviting all of us to live in the truth, is love’s duty.

Fr. Richard Neuhaus wrote a review of the statement when it first came out. His thoughts and selections from the statement are here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/homosexuality-and-loves-duty/

Another paper (Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data) by Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S. of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family discusses some of the recent scientific findings on the causes of homosexuality in the context of a Christian anthropology.

After reviewing the major findings in the empirical literature, the discussion focuses on how such an anthropology can account for these findings without compromising the traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Of particular importance here are notions of original sin, fallen nature, the sexual difference, and the virtue of chastity. You can find that here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/causes-of-homosexuality-a-christian-appraisal-of-the-data/

Your questions are all answered in either of these posts.

dj

 

[DysonSphere]

djeter,

As for the second article, there is much promise here. I am ignorant about biology, so I will trust his statistical analysis. I agree that it is uncertain how and whether homosexual inclination is biological in nature, or how social factors may play a role.

On the one hand, the article makes a very good case for homosexual activity being unnatural, by linking it causally (or so it is claimed) with other unnatural activities, such as abuse, as well as with disease. Given these conditions, an argument may be able to be constructed for homosexual activity being undesirable, for the sake of individual happiness.

On the other hand, if I am to take the statement seriously: “this understanding of original sin is essential when we are speaking of the moral quality of human inclinations”, then I must conclude that the argument provided is a very limited argument, limited at least to only Christians. Non-Christians generally reject such interpretations of Genesis, many rejecting Genesis outright. Some Christians also have a much broader view of Genesis than the one presented in the article.

Thank you for your time and energy answering my questions. The first point listed for the second article indeed involves some questions and challenges that I don’t have good answers for, at the present time.

 

[Abu]

DysonSphere
A fairly narrow scriptural defense (God made them to be fruitful and multiply) and a comparably narrow Christian framework, seems to be necessary to defend this view, as well as other views (with which I also disagree) such as on contraception and masturbation.

There is nothing “narrow” about truth, and the teaching of Christ is not essential to realise the existence of the natural moral law. Morality and the power of reason from cause to effect has been so bludgeoned that no wonder some are unable now to see the wood for the trees. Morality is not new or limited to Christians. It has been extant since ancient times because it is part of human nature created by God.

Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton), 2001, p 169).

For instance the Code of Hammarubi and The 42 negative confessions of the Ancient Egyptians.

Roman jurists had already developed the maxim that any doubts in cases of freedom or slavery, should be resolved in favor of liberty.—William E. H. Lecky (1838-1903), *The Substance of History of European Morals *(from Augustus to Charlemagne), 2 vols, ed. Clement Wood (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), I, p 295.

For example, Roman jurist Domitius Ulpianus (c. 160 A.D. - 228 A.D.) had said, “by the law of nature all men are equal.”—Digest, L, 17.32; and “natural law regards all men as equal”—On Sabinus, Book XLIII.

Pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

The result of irrationality regarding the natural moral law of course is plain for all to see through contraception (and abortion) – the demographic winter over Europe and fast approaching in the rest of the world.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Djeter,

You posit the healthiness and flourishing of homsexual relations based on those who are in “faithful” partnerships, as if somehow acting like married couples makes it all good

This is exactly what I do not do! I do not posit the healthiness of all gay relationships nor think that something ‘makes it all good’.

Many, perhaps most, gay people for all I know do not act morally. My claim is that those that are faithful, in a committed relationship and practising safe sex are acting morally.

Your statistics are completely irrelevant to that claim.

Here is an analogy for you. Suppose most climbers took unnecessary risks. Obviously we would both condemn them. But what about the minority who did not? It is would be silly to condemn them too wouldn’t it?

So here is the question - why are the faithful gay couples doing wrong please?

Laurie

 

[John_Pascendi]

'safe’sex means that one of the partners or both as is usual…are unfaithful and thus something must be worn so that a disease cant spread…so the argument right there is absurd. The species must survive so same sex love is against nature for that reason.Your arguments seem to stand with the evil aclu that is out to destroy the boy scouts for their moral stands on God and values etc…Allowing homosexuals to be scout leaders in total evil for one is tempting fate…and Jesus warned never to do that!The same organizaton…the aclu that wants to destroy the scouts by forcing them to allow homosexuals to be scout leaders also want to legaize child porn…the act of rape and sodomizing children by adults,what a great bunch of folks this organization is…Ginsberg on the supreme court ,an official in the aclu,wrote in college that the age of consent should be lowered down to age 12.how quaint! Should a life guard be forced to give mouth to mouth etc on a homosexual beach? …a friend of mine says no way…and what about blood,why is it banned from hospitals. If two people want to live together as in the odd couple…who cares…but why cant we straights (!) have any rights at all and object to them being in sensitive positions as in teaching and the clergy he asks!!!(mmm if I am called a straight…may I call that person a crooked?)

 

[Abu]

DysonSphere, as a self-styled “Catholic” seeks to categorise the doctrine of the Catholic Church against contraception and masturbation as a “view”. How quaint on Catholic Answers.

“Revelation also contains moral teachings which per se could be known by natural reason. Access to them, however, is made difficult by man’s sinful condition. It is a doctrine of faith that these moral norms can be infallibly taught by the Magisterium (17).” (Donum Vitae, CDF, 1990).
“Notes
(17) Cf. Vatican Council, I, Dogmatic Constitution *Dei Filius, *ch. 2: DS 3005.”

CCC #2039: “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

So objectively dissenting from the infallible teaching against contraception in *Casti Connubii *and Humane Vitae, a doctrine taught always and everywhere, is a grave sin.

 

[davidv]

Djeter,

You posit the healthiness and flourishing of homsexual relations based on those who are in “faithful” partnerships, as if somehow acting like married couples makes it all good

This is exactly what I do not do! I do not posit the healthiness of all gay relationships nor think that something ‘makes it all good’.

Many, perhaps most, gay people for all I know do not act morally. My claim is that those that are faithful, in a committed relationship and practising safe sex are acting morally.

Your statistics are completely irrelevant to that claim.

Here is an analogy for you. Suppose most climbers took unnecessary risks. Obviously we would both condemn them. But what about the minority who did not? It is would be silly to condemn them too wouldn’t it?

So here is the question - why are the faithful gay couples doing wrong please?

Laurie

Why? Because same sex intimate relations are objectively disordered and wrong. This is so for the same reason that deliberately killing an innocent human being is objectively disordered and wrong. And please don’t claim that I have made them equal by this comparison.