- Status
D
DysonSphere
Guest
Though I don’t think either of these litanies are wholly moral, I agree with the basic point, that there is a universal morality, and that there is an objective way to know it and reason upon it. When I reason upon what is right and what is wrong, however much I may be in error (a real possibility), I conclude that there is nothing wrong, all things being equal, with homosexuality, either the inclination, or the act.
That’s why I asked, in effect, to see other people’s homework. How did they get to the conclusion that homosexual activity is wrong? I see some compelling arguments, some, so stated, I cannot effectively answer. Yet. My intuition is still that there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity. I plan to test this intuition against these arguments, to see what still stands.
Any defense that rests on “the Bible says so” or “the Church says so” I find narrow. It’s too limited for me, limited in the sense of being bound to one sect or ancient code.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
So it is the opinion of the Church that their opinion is more than an opinion. It’s not surprising. People often think their ideas are more important than they actually are, and tend to err in the direction of overestimating the range and certainty of their views. I am no different in this than anyone else.
It is interesting that the Church considers dissent, one of the most powerful and useful activities within any enterprise and institution, and a sign of great health and vitality, a “grave sin”. I think I will dissent from this opinion also.
It is interesting that the Church considers dissent, one of the most powerful and useful activities within any enterprise and institution, and a sign of great health and vitality, a “grave sin”. I think I will dissent from this opinion also.
A
Abu
Guest
I’m sorry that you have been so malformed and disinformed with such an erroneous idea of reason and faith from the facts of history and the God who took human nature as Jesus of Nazareth. You now have the opportunity, as do many others, to face reality. The prejudices that you express are typical of some theologians. You have effectively dissociated yourself from Christ. Christ as building a “sect” or “ancient code”? No wonder society is in such a mess when simple facts are so distorted.
Morality is not based on opinion. Doctrine is not based on opinion. Christ did not give opinions when He built His Church on St Peter and gave him His authority to bind and loose – He gave the power of authority to serve us with truth. Even non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires the “loyal submission of will and intellect…in a special way…” (Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, 25 (post #170). The laxity in formation of Catholics whether in families, schools or parishes, too often evident since Vatican II, is very evident, here.
Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, *Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? *Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4).
Dr William Kraft asserts that the habit of masturbation carries the message that the person has not integrated his social, spiritual, emotional and physical life.” (A Psychospiritual View, 39-45). [Referenced and quoted by Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., *The Truth About Homosexuality, Ignatius 1996, p 162).
Fr Harvey (Op. cit. p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:
- The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
- Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents. Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural.
M
momor
Guest
Since you have chosen to identify yourself as a Catholic on this forum you should probably add a disclaimer that you hold dissenting views on Church.teaching.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I am Catholic, at least culturally, which is what matters to me. I think my signature makes clear my views.
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Call them ‘curved’ or ‘unusual’ or why not just see them as another human, like you, but who expresses their love differently/
Laurie
D
djeter
Guest
Thanks for the nice words about the blog, Mark.
If you wish to insert a step homosexuality-human brokenness-statistics, be my guest. I don’t think I have been arguing against the impossibility of loving committed relationships – obvously (as you note) experience and observation (as much as they can) demonstrate the possibility exists. There are also any number of Catholic homosexuals who are living chaste lives so the anecdotal evidence you and Laurie advance can’t be denied either.
As for the argument that there is no sine qua non sexual act that defines homosexual physical intimacy, you are correct. Obviously any sex act homosexuals can perform heterosexuals can perform as well. I think it is fair enough to assume that some acts are performed more often than others and the statistical evidence of higher rates of rectal cancers and incidences of disease etc among gays than heterosexuals would appear to bear that out.
The only conclusion I have drawn from the statistics is that Church teachings are not idle philosophical or theological musings – a moral disorder can be shown to be a real world disorder. As to calling any of the anecdotal evidence “virtuous,” that’s an argument I have never seen made.
“a tendency to confuse the freedom to be completely who we are (which includes our sexuality) as license to do what we want” – there is no freedom to “be completely who we are” that is not illusory.
It is hard to recall the medieval definition of freedom which the Catholic Church follows – which was not the political license to follow our bellies or the philosophical encouragement to send our elders packing. Freedom was understood, rather, as a growing into the habits, the virtues, that allow us to fulfill our end as human beings without the impediments of vice – precisely what Church teachings call us to. A great article by Anthony Esolen on freedom of heaven and the freedom of hell is here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/31/the-freedom-of-heaven-the-freedom-of-hell/
dj
D
djeter
Guest
It’s true you don’t posit it for all (never said you did) but you do for the subset you have erroneously created. The statistics show that a real world disorder is evident in homosexual relations, so it is not just some idle theological or philosophical argument that is being made. Taken in toto (stats + arguments), your claim becomes irrelevant if not a little bizarre.
Why are they doing wrong? Pride and pleasure, perhaps? Because of both Original Sin and personal sin, moral disorder is all too common in our world. There are a variety of acts (not just homosexuality), such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception, that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Hence they are wrong, Laurie. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life. Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.
Consequently, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that homosexual acts “are contrary to the natural law. . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.” In support of this judgment, the Church points not only to the intrinsic order of creation (Genesis), but also to what God has revealed in Sacred Scripture (example below).
In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.” Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God. In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings. He tells how homosexual practices can arise among people who erroneously worship the creature rather than the Creator:
“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. St. Paul listed homosexual practices among those things that are incompatible with the Christian life.” [See 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10.]
Hope that helps. Thank you for your reply.
dj
D
djeter
Guest
I think the arguments become convincing the more committed you become to a life of faith and the knowledge of the role of sin in our lives.
Blaise Pascal rests his apologetic for Christianity on the simple fact that all people are unhappy. This universal, enduring, and stubborn sadness is Sin. Now this does not mean that Sin is identical to psychological depression. The worst sinners can be the most psychologically well-adjusted people (and flourishing!), and the greatest saints can be, by any ordinary measure, quite unhappy.
When I speak of sadness in this context, I mean the deep sense of un-fulfillment. We want the Truth and we get it, if at all, in dribs and drabs; we want the Good, and we achieve it only rarely; we seem to know what we ought to be, but we are in fact something else. This spiritual frustration, this inner warfare, this debility of soul, is Sin.
It is nowhere better described than in the seventh chapter of the letter that Paul wrote to the Romans toward the end of his life. The passage begins simply and magnificently: “I do not understand my own actions” (Romans 7:14). Paul knows, even twenty years after his conversion to Christ, that he remains an enigma to himself. And the mystery is clearly articulated: “For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15). Paul lives at cross purposes to himself, his best inclinations stymied, his highest thoughts countered by his lowest desires, his good will giving rise to sordid acts.
Sounding like an alcoholic who knows that taking a drink is the very worst thing he could do precisely as he raises the glass to his lips, Paul continues, “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it” (Romans. 7:18). When he looks within, he sees, not an ordered harmony, but a battlefield: “for I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind” (Romans 7:23). And the conclusion of this bit of brutally honest introspection is an anguished statement and an equally anguished question: “Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24). The Apostle to the Gentiles …sees the truth of his situation with awful clarity his spiritual life is a civil war, and no amount of fighting will resolve the conflict.
Pascal mines further this Pauline vein when he says, “We are incapable of not desiring truth and happiness and incapable of either certainty or happiness.” This is both our greatness (we know what we ought to have) and our wretchedness (we cannot achieve it). In one of the best known of his Pensees, Pascal says, “Man is neither angel nor beast, and it is unfortunately the case that anyone trying to act the angel acts the beast.”
In other words, when we convince ourselves that all is basically well with us and that through our efforts of mind, will, imagination, can work our way out of our wretchedness, we do not resolve our dysfunction; we intensify it. The whole history of the Homosexualist movement is based on this factum – Laurie and others have convinced themselves that all is basically well with them.
Sin in the Therapeutic Society…
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/12/understanding-sin-2-sin-in-the-therapeutic-society/
dj
W
WatchingMedia
Guest
Since this is a Catholic Answers web site, the OP must want Catholic Answers or he/she would have gone to a non-Catholic web site. 
“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;116 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;117 "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."118
By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Numbered paragraphs taken from the CCC, 2nd Ed.
**2331 **
"God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . ., God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."115“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;116 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;117 "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."118
2333
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity…**2357 **
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.2359
Homosexual persons are called to chastity.By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Numbered paragraphs taken from the CCC, 2nd Ed.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
This may very-well be true. I don’t know how important sin is, but I grow daily in faith in God, at least insofar as I can discern.
I am not so much one of those “joyless people”, as Pascal would seem to be. I think happiness, genuine happiness, is possible in this world, and is actual to a greater or lesser degree in individuals, so long as their basic needs are met and so long as they live generally balanced lives. That we are incapable of certainty, I agree. In general, I agree with that quote.
I do know this quote, but I didn’t know Pascal was the author of it. Interesting.
This is a possible explanation. Let me offer another. It is possible also that Laurie sees within herself (?) many faults. She may be selfish, rude, may be very impatient in lines, may think very dark thoughts in the middle of the night. I suspect that she recognizes these (or other) inadequacies within herself, though maybe not perfectly. She is likely aware that she is “not an angel”.
One possibility is that she is ignoring that her homosexual lifestyle is contributing to her spiritual malcontent and fault-laden nature. Another is that her homosexual lifestyle, if it is loving, is actually a remedy to many of these faults, and that her partner may be a healing force in her life.
Simply saying that people are flawed (most would agree), and sometimes ignore their faults (most again would agree), says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual activity.
W
WatchingMedia
Guest
I should have added this paragraph, since it seems to pertain to this discussion.Since this is a Catholic Answers web site, the OP must want Catholic Answers or he/she would have gone to a non-Catholic web site.
**2331 **
"God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . ., God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."115
“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;116 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;117 "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."118
2333
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity…
**2357 **
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359
Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Numbered paragraphs taken from the CCC, 2nd Ed.
2089
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
** schism** is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
Remember the words of Cardinal John O’Connor: “The Catholic Church is not a salad bar. You can not pick and choose what you want to believe.”
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I hold to a more open understanding of “Catholic” than O’Connor and indeed most of the hierarchy. I imagine a great number of Catholics also hold a more open understanding than this.
B
Booklover
Guest
No, Laurie, this is not correct. The fact that a homosexual couple are faithful to each other, does not make their sexual actions good and moral. Homosexual sex goes against nature and how God created man and woman. No matter how much you try to convince yourself to the contrary it won’t work.
**From Defending a Higher Life
The Purpose of the Sexual Act Page 67
**
If sexual intercourse were not enjoyable in itself, the propagation of the human race, which depends on it, would be jeopardized. Reason makes it clear, however, that the purpose of this act is not pleasure but the perpetuation of mankind. To make pleasure the primary motive for sexual intercourse replaces the principal end of the act with its corollary. This inversion runs contrary to the act’s very purpose.
Opposing the Main Purpose of Intercourse is a Sin Page 69
Although every directly procured act of consummated lust is a mortal sin, some are graver than others. Adultery is graver than simple fornication: incest is graver than adultery, and sins against nature are graver still. Sins against nature are not only opposed to the purpose of sexual intercourse, but in addition are “contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race.”
Hope this helps!
M
momor
Guest
What, pray tell, is a ‘cultural’ Catholic?
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Hi DJ
Thanks for your reply. Allow me some comments
. The statistics show that a real world disorder is evident in homosexual relations, so it is not just some idle theological or philosophical argument that is being made.
The statistics show that some bad things are more prevalent in the gay community but that does not mean that this is because their actions are wrong. After all I suspect the proportion of climbers who die young is higher than in the rest of the population. But that is not an argument showing climbing is wrong. It is an argument for urging climbers to take precautions. Similarly your ‘statistics’ are arguments for urging gay people to behave in moral ways within their relationships.
Why are the statistics higher among gays? Depends I suppose on the particular one under discussion. And I am sure there is multiple causation here too. Two factors you might consider. Gay relationships do not usually involve children. I suspect a comparison between childless couples and gay couples might show closer figures. Also I think there is a ‘might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb’ factor here. If you or I were tempted to be unfaithful, the fact that marriage is a respectable institution backed up by social pressures etc would help to keep us in line. A gay person does not [though things are improving] have that back up and might think in a moment of weakness, “Well the Church has condemned me to hell anyway so a bit of unfaithfulness is neither here nor there. I am apparently a depraved person anyway!” But what do I or you know about these things? Neither of us has the qualifications to comment. Your picture shows you to be a young man – why not get some?
Why are they doing wrong? Pride and pleasure, perhaps? Because of both Original Sin and personal sin, moral disorder is all too common in our world.
If it were sinful, that might be the reason – but is it wrong?
There are a variety of acts (not just homosexuality), such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Hence they are wrong, Laurie. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life.
According to the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law. But you must know all the objections to it.
Possibly for straights but obviously God must have had a different idea when he made gays?
In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.”
Everybody? Obviously not because it is OK to be celibate for the minority who prefer this. So why not gays ditto?
Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God.
Not very often actually and,in one case, in the same chapter as disapproval of planting different crops in the same field. Why should we heed a Semitic people’s 3,000 year old holiness code?
In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings.
He also approves on slavery, thinks women are inferior to men and that marriage is a lesser choice than celibacy. We have moved on from these culturally conditioned views of his – let’s do the same re gays.
With good wishes,
Laurie
Thanks for your reply. Allow me some comments
. The statistics show that a real world disorder is evident in homosexual relations, so it is not just some idle theological or philosophical argument that is being made.
The statistics show that some bad things are more prevalent in the gay community but that does not mean that this is because their actions are wrong. After all I suspect the proportion of climbers who die young is higher than in the rest of the population. But that is not an argument showing climbing is wrong. It is an argument for urging climbers to take precautions. Similarly your ‘statistics’ are arguments for urging gay people to behave in moral ways within their relationships.
Why are the statistics higher among gays? Depends I suppose on the particular one under discussion. And I am sure there is multiple causation here too. Two factors you might consider. Gay relationships do not usually involve children. I suspect a comparison between childless couples and gay couples might show closer figures. Also I think there is a ‘might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb’ factor here. If you or I were tempted to be unfaithful, the fact that marriage is a respectable institution backed up by social pressures etc would help to keep us in line. A gay person does not [though things are improving] have that back up and might think in a moment of weakness, “Well the Church has condemned me to hell anyway so a bit of unfaithfulness is neither here nor there. I am apparently a depraved person anyway!” But what do I or you know about these things? Neither of us has the qualifications to comment. Your picture shows you to be a young man – why not get some?
Why are they doing wrong? Pride and pleasure, perhaps? Because of both Original Sin and personal sin, moral disorder is all too common in our world.
If it were sinful, that might be the reason – but is it wrong?
There are a variety of acts (not just homosexuality), such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Hence they are wrong, Laurie. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life.
According to the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law. But you must know all the objections to it.
- It seems to overplay the physical [reproduction] as against the social. [expressing love]
- It is unclear why this consideration should ‘trump’ all others. For example a woman, for whom more children would be a financial disaster, has to choose. Contraception – against Natural Law [negative factor] & happy marriage [positive factor] OR no contraception [positive factor] & marriage difficulties [negative factor]. It is not at all obvious why in this case and all others that could be described the Natural Law side always ‘trumps’ the other.
- Natural Law sometimes entails the correctness of actions which most people would regard as wrong. Not lying to the Nazis, not using contraception under any circumstances, not allowing two gay people who are in love from expressing their love physically… A view of ethics which implies these things must be defective.
- You worship a God who is supposed to be all Love. Two possibilities – (1) Despite being all love he rejects the love of gay people if expressed physically or (2) [As many non-Catholics think] you have misinterpreted the Bible and have erroneous beliefs about the sort of morality which God commands. (1) seems most unlikely – try (2)?
- Sex in the safe period and sex when the woman is passed the menopause is not ‘open to reproduction’ yet is allowed. We now have some sleight of hand so show that these things are OK after all. Let’s have something similar for gays. Why not?
Possibly for straights but obviously God must have had a different idea when he made gays?
In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.”
Everybody? Obviously not because it is OK to be celibate for the minority who prefer this. So why not gays ditto?
Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God.
Not very often actually and,in one case, in the same chapter as disapproval of planting different crops in the same field. Why should we heed a Semitic people’s 3,000 year old holiness code?
In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings.
He also approves on slavery, thinks women are inferior to men and that marriage is a lesser choice than celibacy. We have moved on from these culturally conditioned views of his – let’s do the same re gays.
With good wishes,
Laurie
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
ONE MORE THING - AGAINST NATURE
Friends - I do not care a fig if something is against nature. I do not think that this makes it wrong. Therefore you waste breath telling me that gay sex is unnatural. I know it is - but I want to know why it is also wrong.
My good friend Portrait and I spent many happy posts where he tried to persuade me. In the end it came down to this. If something was unnatural, he just felt in the deep fibres of his being that it was also wrong. But I do not have such a feeling! Impasse.
If anyone can say more to persuade me - please go ahead.
But remember, repeating that gay sex is unnatural does not help here because I have accepted that it is. Tell me though - why does that make it wrong?
Laurie
Friends - I do not care a fig if something is against nature. I do not think that this makes it wrong. Therefore you waste breath telling me that gay sex is unnatural. I know it is - but I want to know why it is also wrong.
My good friend Portrait and I spent many happy posts where he tried to persuade me. In the end it came down to this. If something was unnatural, he just felt in the deep fibres of his being that it was also wrong. But I do not have such a feeling! Impasse.
If anyone can say more to persuade me - please go ahead.
But remember, repeating that gay sex is unnatural does not help here because I have accepted that it is. Tell me though - why does that make it wrong?
Laurie
M
momor
Guest
I noticed your insistence early on in the thread that you are not a moral relativist. Yet by all appearances that is exactly what you seem to be, your denial notwithstanding. The nature of Nature is pretty much a Truth yet you seem not to care if something is against Nature. How is that not relative?
- Status