Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Portrait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the topic is homosexuality and Natural Law

and no, homosexuality can not be “proven wrong” this way
You seem to have arrived late. May I suggest that you read any of “Portrait’s” posts here to see the case that was made. The link I made earlier to Rev Noriega’s arguments speaking to the topic “Can homosexual behavior and the inclination at its origin be ordered toward the good life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?” would also demonstrate the intrinsic wrongfulness of the homosexual act. It is particularly instructive as it contrasts the complementarity of the male/female relationship.

Just saying doesn’t make it so, Larkin31. If you have something more definitive than “No, its not,” let those of us obviously deficient in intellect and learning in on the sources of your wonderful knowledge.

dj
 
I read the article mentioned above. I have to say he is unneccesarily dense in his style of writing. But the interesting (for me) take away message i got was that many of the arguments he makes for why homosexual relations are wrong can be made for why the popular understanding of sex is wrong. Essentially that when sex is reduced to genital stimulation and satisfaction the relationship and the participants are objectified.

The fact that this is the popular understanding today of the purpose of sex makes it very easy to see why so many people fail to see anything wrong with homosexual relations and marriage.
The article is taken from a scholarly Catholic journal (Communio) dealing with the topic of Natural Law (Fall 2008) and written by a Professor of Moral Theology and Vice-Chancellor of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. The good father Noriega specializes in sexual ethics – so it is hardly the stuff for a popular audience but neither is the topic that deals with Homosexuality and Natural Law, like the one we have here.

I think more important than what you’ve written here is the notion that we are persons, embodied souls (or ensouled bodies take your pick). Male and female share a complementarity that completes themselves in a way that two males or two females cannot. In the language of John Paul II, they form a communio personarum.

Homosexualism, on the other hand, reflects a dualistic anthropological understanding that is incapable of taking up the subjectivity of one’s “own body” as an expression of the person. This fragmentation between the I and the body makes it radically difficult for the experience of the body to be significant at a psychological level. In short the structure of the homosexual relationship, in terms of marriage anyways, is DOA.

Noriega gives us the example of a person recognizing himself as a son and placing himself in a father-son relationship. It is necessary that this relationship be built on the fact of having been generated, or as the case may be, adopted, by another. The way a person assumes this foundation and builds a relationship constitutes the relational identity. The child can thus recognize himself in the unconditional love of his parents.

If another child, say a close friend from school were to attempt to have the same relationship with this father as the son had, this relationship would lack a basic foundation: it would be a fiction. However sympathetic this adult might be, he would not be the child’s father. Even if the child behaved as though he were the son, he would not be such: the foundation is lacking. To feel like someone’s son does not suffice to be his son.

The same semblance of intimacy that homosexualism generates is akin to not having that foundation, that essential complementarity.

Perhaps a gross oversimplification, but if anyone else would like to take something from the article , be my guest.

dj
 
You seem to have arrived late. May I suggest that you read any of “Portrait’s” posts here to see the case that was made. The link I made earlier to Rev Noriega’s arguments speaking to the topic “Can homosexual behavior and the inclination at its origin be ordered toward the good life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?” would also demonstrate the intrinsic wrongfulness of the homosexual act. It is particularly instructive as it contrasts the complementarity of the male/female relationship.

Just saying doesn’t make it so, Larkin31. If you have something more definitive than “No, its not,” let those of us obviously deficient in intellect and learning in on the sources of your wonderful knowledge.

dj
Please don’t ascribe those negative depictions to me. I do not see those who disagree with me this way. I would appreciate it if you would not ascribe that acerbic tone to me. It is another form of smear.

I have been in this thread from the start. “Natural Law” is a very specific thing, and no one here has made a persuasive case for it. And this comment has no bearing on anyone’s intelligence or character.
 
I read the article mentioned above. I have to say he is unneccesarily dense in his style of writing. But the interesting (for me) take away message i got was that many of the arguments he makes for why homosexual relations are wrong can be made for why the popular understanding of sex is wrong. Essentially that when sex is reduced to genital stimulation and satisfaction the relationship and the participants are objectified.

The fact that this is the popular understanding today of the purpose of sex makes it very easy to see why so many people fail to see anything wrong with homosexual relations and marriage.
I agree. Excess desire and lust are never a good thing and can be quite harmful. This is tru no matter the object of the desire.
 
False. I read it. It is used negatively throughout.

Again wrong. I have never called homosexuality “normative.” It is an empty term.

Some aspects of it, sure. The “movement” is not cohesive or unified, so no one supports it all, nor do I. I am sure that I do not even know half of it since I hardly read about it beyond what I am interested in.
I could have written on the topic of Republicans and used the term negatively while defining it. Perhaps this essay is more to your liking

old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200311240925.asp

How is a perfectly good word like “normative” an empty term? If you consider homosexual acts normal human behavior and unworthy of the attention paid to them by the Church or other groups, then doesn’t that carry some meaning beyond “empty.” A homosexual is a person who is erotically attracted towards persons of his or her own sex. A homosexualist is a type of ideologue — which means, someone who divides the human race into two fundamentally opposed categories, the Elect and the Damned, Lenin’s “Who” and “Whom.” For a homosexualist, the Elect are homosexuals and those who “celebrate” them.

You may not know all the details of the agenda (I don’t myself) but I do know that it supports gay marriage. Rather than just saying NO why not define yourself in terms of the article. It keeps others from guessing what you think. Quite helpful, really.

dj
 
I could have written on the topic of Republicans and used the term negatively while defining it. Perhaps this essay is more to your liking

old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200311240925.asp

How is a perfectly good word like “normative” an empty term? If you consider homosexual acts normal human behavior and unworthy of the attention paid to them by the Church or other groups, then doesn’t that carry some meaning beyond “empty.” A homosexual is a person who is erotically attracted towards persons of his or her own sex. A homosexualist is a type of ideologue — which means, someone who divides the human race into two fundamentally opposed categories, the Elect and the Damned, Lenin’s “Who” and “Whom.” For a homosexualist, the Elect are homosexuals and those who “celebrate” them.

You may not know all the details of the agenda (I don’t myself) but I do know that it supports gay marriage. Rather than just saying NO why not define yourself in terms of the article. It keeps others from guessing what you think. Quite helpful, really.

dj
“normal” is an even less meaningful term

I support gay marriage. Yes. Very definitely. I consider the spreading of justice and equal treatment on this planet to be one of the greatest of human endeavors.
 
Please don’t ascribe those negative depictions to me. I do not see those who disagree with me this way. I would appreciate it if you would not ascribe that acerbic tone to me. It is another form of smear.

I have been in this thread from the start. “Natural Law” is a very specific thing, and no one here has made a persuasive case for it. And this comment has no bearing on anyone’s intelligence or character.
Unless you quote the “negative depictions” we have no idea what you are responding to. What acerbic tone? How am I “smearing” you? Take a few deep breaths. As I told Laurie earlier in this thread I tend to end discussions when my partner begins to hyperventilate.

So no one has “made the case.” Pray tell us why. Once again, just saying something doesn’t make it so, Larkin31. What is your understanding of the very specific thing you call Natural Law?

Most Catholics would point to the following as a pretty good working definition:

"It is precisely in the light of this contestation that all the urgency of the necessity to reflect upon the theme of natural law and to rediscover its truth common to all men appears. The said law, to which the Apostle Paul refers (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is written on the heart of man and is consequently, even today, accessible.

This law has as its first and general principle, “to do good and to avoid evil.” This is a truth which by its very evidence immediately imposes itself on everyone. From it flows the other more particular principles that regulate ethical justice on the rights and duties of everyone.

So does the principle of respect for human life from its conception to its natural end, because this good of life is not man’s property but the free gift of God. Besides this is the duty to seek the truth as the necessary presupposition of every authentic personal maturation.

Another fundamental application of the subject is freedom. Yet taking into account the fact that human freedom is always a freedom shared with others, it is clear that the harmony of freedom can be found only in what is common to all: the truth of the human being, the fundamental message of being itself, exactly the lex naturalis.

And how can we not mention, on one hand, the demand of justice that manifests itself in giving unicuique suum and, on the other, the expectation of solidarity that nourishes in everyone, especially if they are poor, the hope of the help of the more fortunate?

In these values are expressed unbreakable and contingent norms that do not depend on the will of the legislator and not even on the consensus that the State can and must give. They are, in fact, norms that precede any human law: as such, they are not subject to modification by anyone. The natural law, together with fundamental rights, is the source from which ethical imperatives also flow, which it is only right to honor."

Of course I’m cheating by using the Holy Father, I’m sure…But you can read any number of comments on this thread concerning homosexual acts that clearly demonstrate that it is beyond the pale of the ethical imperatives contained in natural law.

But you say, No it doesn’t. I think it is because you are a homosexualist but until you explain why you are not or say something a homosexualist WOULDN’T SAY, you leave me with no other alternative. Your choice is to say something meaningful or we can just end it here. Best of luck to you.

dj
 
“normal” is an even less meaningful term

I support gay marriage. Yes. Very definitely. I consider the spreading of justice and equal treatment on this planet to be one of the greatest of human endeavors.
Oh goodie. Why do you support gay marriage? How does denying marriage to gay couples become an “injustice?” How is it not “equal treatment?” Try to write something specific, not gauzy liberal sentiments.

*Normal *functions pretty good when it means not abnormal.

dj
 
Oh goodie. Why do you support gay marriage? How does denying marriage to gay couples become an “injustice?” How is it not “equal treatment?” Try to write something specific, not gauzy liberal sentiments.

*Normal *functions pretty good when it means not abnormal.

dj
As an English teacher, I am tempted to correct both your grammar and word choice.

The point is that “normal” is a gauzy conservative term meant to be loaded with associated moral connotations. It is not a term for adult discourse that attempts to get past terms used in vague smears.
 
Oh goodie. Why do you support gay marriage? How does denying marriage to gay couples become an “injustice?” How is it not “equal treatment?” Try to write something specific, not gauzy liberal sentiments.

*Normal *functions pretty good when it means not abnormal.

dj
Defending gay marriage is off the topic of this thread. “Natural Law” is no “proof” of anything about the institution of “marriage.”
 
As an English teacher, I am tempted to correct both your grammar and word choice.

The point is that “normal” is a gauzy conservative term meant to be loaded with associated moral connotations. It is not a term for adult discourse that attempts to get past terms used in vague smears.
On that note I will fold my tent and leave. Perhaps you can continue with others on a less hostile attitude. Sorry to have offended you so.

dj
 
On that note I will fold my tent and leave. Perhaps you can continue with others on a less hostile attitude. Sorry to have offended you so.

dj
I tend to match the tone with which I am addressed. That is fairly “normal” as in “common.”
 
The natural law is the standard by which certain actions are right and other actions are wrong for all human beings – choices that in some way suppress a love and appreciation of any of these goods, whether in ourselves or in others, restrict our love and resist God’s directives to the fulfillment of his plan, and are morally wrong.

In any case, the natural moral law provides an objective standard by which to determine what is right and wrong. Choices that respect every fundamental human good are morally right; choices that violate or unduly neglect a basic human good are morally wrong. Moreover, God creates wisely, and so he has a definite plan. The plan is to communicate goodness to others. Part of that plan is for human creatures, human persons, to attain the perfection or good to which God directs them in their natures.

Thus, our nature and our reason together are directives from God, ordering (orienting) us to our good and to the attainment of part of God’s plan.

The natural moral law provides the basis for absolute moral norms. Since the natural moral law is the basic moral truth that we should respect every basic good, every intrinsic aspect, of human persons, it follows that choices which inevitably close one’s will to some basic human good, either in oneself or in another, are always morally wrong, no matter what the circumstances and no matter the consequences one expects to follow.
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor CD].

From the testimony of pagan philosophers through to the divinely instituted Catholic Church the natural moral law has been upheld as God’s creation.
**
The Power of the Third Commandment**
Now the social sciences have discovered that the more frequently Americans worship, practice religion, the better they do on every observable outcome measured to date – this includes adultery, homosexual conduct, cohabitation and many more areas benefiting the individual and society:
catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=6543

There is no one who can replace the natural moral law.
 
…Thus, our nature and our reason together are directives from God, ordering (orienting) us to our good and to the attainment of part of God’s plan…
Which god? One worshiped today? One no longer worshiped? The one you worship, or another one? I think you need to be more specific, since there are three major monotheistic religions dominating the planet, and many many other forms of religions and belief systems today and back through the past.
 
This was the notice handed out at the service. I don’t think you read it:

NYC’s 41st Annual LGBT Pride March
*Sunday, June 27, 2010

The Church of St. Francis Xavier is the only Roman Catholic Church in New York City—maybe one of a handful in the world—to participate in the Pride March. We welcome all, as did Jesus. So we ask you to consider walking with the LGBT ministries on Pride Sunday, June 27, and represent a church that truly lives the Gospel. Many of us will attend the 9:00 am or 11:30 am Mass and then head uptown to where the group will meet [location to be determined on June 21].

Each year, through our presence and our handing out of flyers, a number of people find their way to St. Francis Xavier to return to the sacraments and to find their place in the Catholic Church.

We look forward to spending this day of celebration, ministry and the living out of our mission statement together as a parish. If you have any questions, please e-mail SFXWomen@aol.com or SFXGCGroup@gmail.com, or call (917) 297-6804.*

The purpose is to bring Catholics back to the sacraments. Isn’t that what you want?
 
Perhaps you failed to notice that this is a *Catholic Answers *website and the text is from the *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine *– that the reference is to Americans who are regularly worshipping Christians who are considered versus the non-worshipping, and that it is one of the ten Commandments being considered.
 
Perhaps you failed to notice that this is a *Catholic Answers *website and the text is from the *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine *– that the reference is to Americans who are regularly worshipping Christians who are considered versus the non-worshipping, and that it is one of the ten Commandments being considered.
Yes

So, the answer is: one of the three monotheistic Gods being worshiped today.
 
From the testimony of pagan philosophers through to the divinely instituted Catholic Church the natural moral law has been upheld as God’s creation. No one can change the natural moral law.

BTW, as only Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and proved it by His Resurrection attested to by eyewitnesses, and as His Church built Western civilization, it is only natural that following His teaching would be morally beneficial for individuals and society.
 
From the testimony of pagan philosophers through to the divinely instituted Catholic Church the natural moral law has been upheld as God’s creation. No one can change the natural moral law.
It might help if you defined what you mean by “natural moral law.”
 
The natural moral law is a very ancient concept explained early in this thread
**Post #34: **Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason.

**Post #287: **The natural law and morality
tothesource.org/3_17_2010/3_17_2010_printer.htm
“The natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.
“Well, just what are we? We are rational, moral animals—the only rational, moral animals. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape.”
Dr Benjamin Wiker

**Post #314: **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.”

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top