Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Portrait]

Hi davidv,

Any evidence that forced celibacy in the priesthood is “unnatural” or that people frequently argue that it is and blame forced celibacy for the Catholic priest sex scandal? I wasn’t arguing the former. Nor would I, since arguments about what is “natural” tell us nothing about what we ought to do. Whether or not forced celibacy (and yes I know that it is a vow and not in your view “forced”, but it is enforced by the Church in that a priest cannot change his mind without being removed from the priesthood) can lead to frustration and the sort of sexual disorders that could explain the sex abuse scandal, certainly many many priests have no problem with celibacy.

My point was in no way to argue that celibacy is unnatural. My point is simply that such arguments get made all the time. In other words, the notion of Natural Law gets used to condemn the “unnatural” practice of celibacy among priests. If you were not aware of the frequently made arguments that there is something very “unnatural” about what Catholics require of their priests which caused the sex abuse scandal, then I daresay you don’t get out much.

Here’s an article by former Catholic priest and still practicing Catholic James Carroll on the subject:

boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/05/16/celibacy_and_the_catholic_priest/?page=1

“In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in 2005 just prior to Benedict’s naming, 63% of Catholics said the new pope should allow priests to marry.”

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2009/40_of_catholics_say_priests_should_be_allowed_to_marry_39_disagree

Given that vast numbers of even Catholics think priests ought to be able to marry, you should not be so shocked to learn that people frequently argue that celibacy is “unnatural.”

Best,
Leela

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings. Forgive me for butting in here but I felt that I ought to respond to the above.

Whilst I recognize that you are not arguing here that celibacy is unnatural, I should, nevertheless, like to state that celibacy is decidedly not opposed to the law of nature and that it has never been satisfactorily demonstrated that it is so.

May I kindly ask you to ponder the following points:

1/ Have you considered all those individuals for whom marriage, for one reason or another, is quite impossible? Are such persons guilty of violating the natural law?

2/ Let us analyze the supposed law itself. Some laws directly concern men in an individual capacity, whilst others concern them in a social capacity. Clearly, not every individual in society is bound to fulfill the general laws of nature for the welfare of society. For example, it is a law of nature that every living individual must eat if he is to sustain his own life. However, the life of the human race is preserved provided sufficient numbers enter into wedlock and produce offspring. Now this general law of nature is not violated by the abstention from marriage by some, whether by necessity, or by voluntary choice, provided that choice is not at variance with the genaral law of nature.

As regards homosexual liasons men have a basic ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong (unless they have a radically defective conscience) because they are unnatural. Thus we perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. Any issue of consent is inconsequential owing to the unnaturalness and depraved nature of the act itself, as in the case of sexual desire directed towards children.

By parity of reasoning the same is applicable to the case of homosexual aberrant acts. The natural sex part partner for a man is a woman and vice-versa. Thus men, no matter how much they may supress or deny it, have a corresponding intuition regarding homosexual deviancy that they do respecting bestiality - that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

BTW, Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each man naturally possesses that makes needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptablity of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

I will let Leela respond to this, since it is addressed to her. If she does not, I will be happy to respond to each of these points.

 

[davidv]

Hi davidv,

Any evidence that forced celibacy in the priesthood is “unnatural” or that people frequently argue that it is and blame forced celibacy for the Catholic priest sex scandal? I wasn’t arguing the former. Nor would I, since arguments about what is “natural” tell us nothing about what we ought to do. Whether or not forced celibacy (and yes I know that it is a vow and not in your view “forced”, but it is enforced by the Church in that a priest cannot change his mind without being removed from the priesthood) can lead to frustration and the sort of sexual disorders that could explain the sex abuse scandal, certainly many many priests have no problem with celibacy.

My point was in no way to argue that celibacy is unnatural. My point is simply that such arguments get made all the time. In other words, the notion of Natural Law gets used to condemn the “unnatural” practice of celibacy among priests. If you were not aware of the frequently made arguments that there is something very “unnatural” about what Catholics require of their priests which caused the sex abuse scandal, then I daresay you don’t get out much.

Here’s an article by former Catholic priest and still practicing Catholic James Carroll on the subject:

boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/05/16/celibacy_and_the_catholic_priest/?page=1

“In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in 2005 just prior to Benedict’s naming, 63% of Catholics said the new pope should allow priests to marry.”

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2009/40_of_catholics_say_priests_should_be_allowed_to_marry_39_disagree

Given that vast numbers of even Catholics think priests ought to be able to marry, you should not be so shocked to learn that people frequently argue that celibacy is “unnatural.”

Best,
Leela

None of this begins to address your assertion. You wrote:

Originally Posted by Leela forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
You know what is ironic about all this Natural Law business coming from Catholics? Though homosexuality is the number one phenomenon where people employ Human Nature to try to lend their prejudices an air of transcultural authority, the 2nd most common issue where this notion is applied to condemn people’s lifestyles has got to be celibacy among Catholic priests! People make exactly the same sorts of arguments about what is Unnatural as you just did above to explain the Catholic priest sex scandal. (Note the edit I made in replacing the word “homosexuality” with “celibacy.”)

Your first unsupported claim was the natural law is used to hide prejudice. None of what you presented supports this claim. I conclude that this is just a prejudiced assertion on your part.

 

[larkin31]

None of this begins to address your assertion. You wrote:

Your first unsupported claim was the natural law is used to hide prejudice. None of what you presented supports this claim. I conclude that this is just a prejudiced assertion on your part.

Homosexuality is the example from this thread

Do you really dispute Leela’s claim (that "natural law " has been used to bolster prejudice), or are you simply trying to erect massively high hurdles in a conversation to be obstructionist? Have you seen the anti-semitic writings about their “unnatural” Jewish characteristics? Again, I consider this common knowledge…

 

[Leela]

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings. Forgive me for butting in here but I felt that I ought to respond to the above.

Whilst I recognize that you are not arguing here that celibacy is unnatural, I should, nevertheless, like to state that celibacy is decidedly not opposed to the law of nature and that it has never been satisfactorily demonstrated that it is so.

May I kindly ask you to ponder the following points:

1/ Have you considered all those individuals for whom marriage, for one reason or another, is quite impossible? Are such persons guilty of violating the natural law?

2/ Let us analyze the supposed law itself. Some laws directly concern men in an individual capacity, whilst others concern them in a social capacity. Clearly, not every individual in society is bound to fulfill the general laws of nature for the welfare of society. For example, it is a law of nature that every living individual must eat if he is to sustain his own life. However, the life of the human race is preserved provided sufficient numbers enter into wedlock and produce offspring. Now this general law of nature is not violated by the abstention from marriage by some, whether by necessity, or by voluntary choice, provided that choice is not at variance with the genaral law of nature.

As regards homosexual liasons men have a basic ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong (unless they have a radically defective conscience) because they are unnatural. Thus we perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. Any issue of consent is inconsequential owing to the unnaturalness and depraved nature of the act itself, as in the case of sexual desire directed towards children.

By parity of reasoning the same is applicable to the case of homosexual aberrant acts. The natural sex part partner for a man is a woman and vice-versa. Thus men, no matter how much they may supress or deny it, have a corresponding intuition regarding homosexual deviancy that they do respecting bestiality - that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

BTW, Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each man naturally possesses that makes needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptablity of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

I have no interest in arguing about whether or not celibacy is natural. Since there is a gap between Is and Ought, I think such arguments are pointless. I think the application of Natural Law functions as follows:

Step 1: Project your worldview onto the state of nature.
Step 2: Use the state of nature to justify your worldview.

That is why Aristotle could use Natural Law to justify slavery. That is why critics of Catholicism (including vast numbers of Catholics) can use Natural Law to criticize the practice of priestly celibacy as well as those in this thread can use it to criticize homosexuality.

 

[davidv]

Homosexuality is the example from this thread

Do you really dispute Leela’s claim (that "natural law " has been used to bolster prejudice), or are you simply trying to erect massively high hurdles in a conversation to be obstructionist? Have you seen the anti-semitic writings about their “unnatural” Jewish characteristics? Again, I consider this common knowledge…

No, I’m disputing the implication that misuse of an item proves its untruthfulness.

 

[larkin31]

No, I’m disputing the implication that misuse of an item proves its untruthfulness.

“Natural Law” is right sometimes and not right other times? It’s ok to hold our breath (an act that if carried to extremes can be injurious) but not ok to have non-reproductive sex (an act that if carried to extremes can be injurious)?

You don’t see the hypocrisy and double standard in the application of this idea called “Natural Law” in the regulation of human behavior? This does not make you suspicious of it? Hesitant to use it? You do not see its reliance on a shared belief in a single God? You do not see the weakness of an idea that is used to oppress or belittle as often as it is used to benefit and encourage?

 

[davidv]

“Natural Law” is right sometimes and not right other times?

How so?

It’s ok to hold our breath (an act that if carried to extremes can be injurious) but not ok to have non-reproductive sex (an act that if carried to extremes can be injurious)?

What does “natural law” mean to you? I have a strong feeling that you and the Church don’t share the same meaning.

You don’t see the hypocrisy and double standard in the application of this idea called “Natural Law” in the regulation of human behavior?

After settling on the definition, as per above, please explain.

This does not make you suspicious of it? Hesitant to use it? You do not see its reliance on a shared belief in a single God? You do not see the weakness of an idea that is used to oppress or belittle as often as it is used to benefit and encourage?

Why should I be suspicious of that which is God given? There is no weakness in believing in One God.

The most elegant of technical inventions have been misused in the most atrocious ways. Does this condemn technology the same way you are condemning belief in God?

 

[vsedriver]

I find this answer to be a rather strange one. Incest does not need recourse to a ‘higher authority’ to be seen as morally indefensible. Incest is akin to line breeding in livestock. It raises the risk of causing genetic abnormalities of various types. Not to mention the cause of confusion in family/societal roles.This is one ‘taboo’ that has kept the human race in good stead over countless millenia and is common across all societies and all epochs. If ever a moral edict has ever had a solid basis in natural law, this is it!

The call to a ‘higher authority’, particularly in Christian traditions, comes from the knowledge that man was created in His image. If ever anyone wished to defile ‘His image’, incest is a sure fire way to go about it.

Your argument against incest on a genetic basis is unfounded in today’s society with the access to genetic testing and abortion. Imperfect offspring can easily be disposed of. Family and societal roles are all ready breaking down. Fewer children are raised in a biological 2 parent home than ever before. More and more have step relatives and half relatives.

There have been many societies that accepted incest and even in some cases made it mandatory such as in certain royal families ie the Egyptians and Hawaiians.

Without a ‘moral authority’ anything goes.

 

[larkin31]

How so?

What does “natural law” mean to you? I have a strong feeling that you and the Church don’t share the same meaning.

It is not my burden to define a term that I don’t use in arguments. I am not defending “Natural Law,” obviously. I consider it a human invention.

I will repeat: why is it ok to fight against our will to breathe at times, but not ok to fight against the process of reproduction (much less injurious to the individual, in fact)?

 

[djeter]

Well, sure it is. If no one actually uses Natural Law for personal moral discernment, and everyone who appeals top Natural Law only ever does so to condemn what they already oppose for other reasons, then Natural Law moral theory is exposed for what it is. It is merely a way of trying to claim the authority of the Natural for one’s prejudices. Rather than a way of determining what is right and wrong, it is nothing but a tool of oppression.

Really? You have actually used Natural Law to help you decide what you ought to do in some situation? Since you claim you do so in EVERY situation, perhaps you can give one example?

Just as an FYI, you might enjoy this address by Pope Benedict XVI to a recent International Congress on Natural Law:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/07/09/selections-from-pope-benedict-xvi%e2%80%99s-address-to-the-participants-in-the-international-congress-on-natural-law/

When people are referring to lex naturalis or Natural Law on this thread, I assume this is the baseline definition that Benedict XVI offers here.

Regards

dj

 

[Big_Dummy]

God made mankind, male and female

then

God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply

anyway you cut the mustard, two gay animals can not reproduce in nature unless they are male and female. two humans can not be fruitful and multiply without being male and female.

Yes, gays can adopt, but that is not producing new life, just borrowing new life created by male and female.

 

[larkin31]

Just as an FYI, you might enjoy this address by Pope Benedict XVI to a recent International Congress on Natural Law:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/07/09/selections-from-pope-benedict-xvi%e2%80%99s-address-to-the-participants-in-the-international-congress-on-natural-law/

When people are referring to lex naturalis or Natural Law on this thread, I assume this is the baseline definition that Benedict XVI offers here.

Regards

dj

Thanks for this. I just read it. Pope Benedict means the Christian God’s moral rules when he refers to “Natural Law.”

 

[larkin31]

God made mankind, male and female

then

God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply

anyway you cut the mustard, two gay animals can not reproduce in nature unless they are male and female. two humans can not be fruitful and multiply without being male and female.

Yes, gays can adopt, but that is not producing new life, just borrowing new life created by male and female.

of course

fortunately, not all humans follow that first request for the first two humans. The world would be in a terrible mess if it were actually ubiquitously applied.

 

[davidv]

It is not my burden to define a term that I don’t use in arguments. I am not defending “Natural Law,” obviously. I consider it a human invention.

But it is your burden if you are arguing against it. If not, you will likely commit a strawman fallacy.

I will repeat: why is it ok to fight against our will to breathe at times, but not ok to fight against the process of reproduction (much less injurious to the individual, in fact)?

Apples and oranges. Breathing is necessary for the individual’s life, sex is not.

 

[larkin31]

But it is your burden if you are arguing against it. If not, you will likely commit a strawman fallacy.

Apples and oranges. Breathing is necessary for the individual’s life, sex is not.

They are both necessary for the continuation of the species. And if breathing is necessary for individual life, why is there no injunction about controlling it only to have it occur when convenient and not occur when inconvenient? Why is there no ethic around it? Why would the very strong urge to breathe be perfectly fine to interrupt and control as long as no physical damage is done to the self, but sex for pleasure is not ok? This is what I mean about the weak and inconsistent application of Natural Law to regulate human choices. The application of this idea is actually governed by other concerns: our culture-old fixation on body parts, particularly the orifices and the intimate basic acts of eating, passing waste, and sexuality–these are what have been most highly-regulated by the purity laws of the Judeo-Christian cultures.

 

[Leela]

Just as an FYI, you might enjoy this address by Pope Benedict XVI to a recent International Congress on Natural Law:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/07/09/selections-from-pope-benedict-xvi%e2%80%99s-address-to-the-participants-in-the-international-congress-on-natural-law/

When people are referring to lex naturalis or Natural Law on this thread, I assume this is the baseline definition that Benedict XVI offers here.

Regards

dj

I’m not inclined to read the whole article. What is your definition of Natural Law or the one given by the pope?

 

[Leela]

Thanks for this. I just read it. Pope Benedict means the Christian God’s moral rules when he refers to “Natural Law.”

So to appeal to Natural Law is simply to appeal to what one defines as God’s moral rules. The question still remains, what is and isn’t good to do? Calling it Natural Law or the Will of God just raises the question of how you know what God wills and sheds no light on the reasons why what you are saying is good really is good.

 

[Portrait]

I have no interest in arguing about whether or not celibacy is natural. Since there is a gap between Is and Ought, I think such arguments are pointless. I think the application of Natural Law functions as follows:

Step 1: Project your worldview onto the state of nature.
Step 2: Use the state of nature to justify your worldview.

That is why Aristotle could use Natural Law to justify slavery. That is why critics of Catholicism (including vast numbers of Catholics) can use Natural Law to criticize the practice of priestly celibacy as well as those in this thread can use it to criticize homosexuality.

Dear Leela,

Thankyou most kindly for your response above.

Natural law morality is not a matter of one’s personal ‘world view’, on the contrary it is an issue involving the intuitive moral sense that is in fact common to all men. All men have a conscience, or an innate faculty that enables them to distinguish right from wrong, which passes its independent judgement upon their conduct. Thus, for example, men know that bestiality is unnatural and wrong without having to consult the Book of Leviticus because their conscience, like a built-arbiter, informs them that it is so. Indeed this is an evidence of our indestructible moral nature, and a proof that God bears witness to Himself in our hearts, for whether we acknowledge it or not His law is indelibly engraved upon our hearts. Even the pagan philospher Cicero admitted as much.

Leela, the only Catholics who criticize celibacy and seek to normalize and rationalize homosexual deviancy are dissident progressives who, I hasten to add, are not the authoritative spokesmen for official Catholic teaching on faith and morals. They are in revolt against the magesterium of the Church and as such their opinions carry no weight whatsoever.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

So to appeal to Natural Law is simply to appeal to what one defines as God’s moral rules. The question still remains, what is and isn’t good to do? Calling it Natural Law or the Will of God just raises the question of how you know what God wills and sheds no light on the reasons why what you are saying is good really is good.

I agree.

I have said all along that “Natural Law” for religious people always boils down to “Natural Law is the list of rules that the early believers in my god wrote down when speaking for that god.”

Other religious documents attempt to explain WHY these rules are right, but if you read carefully, it always comes down to, “Because it is written so.” Even this same document from Pope Benedict bases itself on the same argument: that “Natural Law” is what the early writers of the Torah said it was.