Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[larkin31]

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…

Since you are making an empirical claim here, I must object and state that this is wrong. You make several unsupportable assertions about human psychology, brain development, and behavior that are not born out by even the most obvious of cases through history.

What/which “intuitive moral sense” is “common to all men”?

Shall we start with infanticide? Would you call that something that “all men” have always known was evil or wrong? Then shall we look at all cultures in history to see if they practiced it, and perhaps even revered it when children were sacrificed to their gods? Which “intuitive moral sense” shared “by all men” was urging them on to do THAT?

 

[Portrait]

Since you are making an empirical claim here, I must object and state that this is wrong. You make several unsupportable assertions about human psychology, brain development, and behavior that are not born out by even the most obvious of cases through history.

What/which “intuitive moral sense” is “common to all men”?

Shall we start with infanticide? Would you call that something that “all men” have always known was evil or wrong? Then shall we look at all cultures in history to see if they practiced it, and perhaps even revered it when children were sacrificed to their gods? Which “intuitive moral sense” shared “by all men” was urging them on to do THAT?

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your coments above.

As I have remarked previously men can have radically defective consciences to the extent that their moral intuitive sense can be seriously blunted or even rendered ineffective.

A man’s conscience is clearly not always necessarily a true conscience. A man can warp his conscience and just as he can form a wrong judement as regards literature, science, ecomomics, business, so likewise can he form a wrong judgement as to what is correct moral conduct or evil moral conduct. This would explain why some cultures have practiced infanticide or any other heinious sin for that matter. Notwithstanding, many ancient civilisations, such as the Egyptians, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and the Romans all had laws forbidding murder, theft, adultery, perjury and so on, even though they did not have the luxury of the revealed will of God like the Hebrews.

The usual response to this is to say that one’s conscience is the product of the environment in which one was reared. However, even supposing that environment did dictate what good was to be done and what evil was to be avoided, a problem still remains. For the basic thing to be explained is why men should think that good of any kind ought to be done, or evil of any kind ought to be avoided; before environment can specify the operations of a human tendency, the tendency has to be there in the first place. Whilst environment may more or less mould one’s conscience, it clearly cannot create a conscience. That God is the author of man’s conscience is the only satisfying explanation as to its origin.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your coments above.

As I have remarked previously men can have radically defective consciences to the extent that their moral intuitive sense can be seriously blunted or even rendered ineffective.

A man’s conscience is clearly not always necessarily a true conscience. A man can warp his conscience and just as he can form a wrong judement as regards literature, science, ecomomics, business, so likewise can he form a wrong judgement as to what is correct moral conduct or evil moral conduct. This would explain why some cultures have practiced infanticide or any other heinious sin for that matter. Notwithstanding, many ancient civilisations, such as the Egyptians, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and the Romans all had laws forbidding murder, theft, adultery, perjury and so on, even though they did not have the luxury of the revealed will of God like the Hebrews.

The usual response to this is to say that one’s conscience is the product of the environment in which one was reared. However, even supposing that environment did dictate what good was to be done and what evil was to be avoided, a problem still remains. For the basic thing to be explained is why men should think that good of any kind ought to be done, or evil of any kind ought to be avoided; before environment can specify the operations of a human tendency, the tendency has to be there in the first place. Whilst environment may more or less mould one’s conscience, it clearly cannot create a conscience. That God is the author of man’s conscience is the only satisfying explanation as to its origin.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

I fully acknowledge “tendencies” to establish ethic systems to protect against injuries, harms, and theft of property. Most cultures also have ethics to protect their deities from blasphemy as well. But the details are not universal, and many of them flatly contradict each other at times.

But yes, humans tend to share certain general values in their cultures. This is a well-known generality. And efficacious in argument as far as it goes. Which is only so far.

 

[Leela]

Leela, the only Catholics who criticize celibacy and seek to normalize and rationalize homosexual deviancy are dissident progressives…

According to polls, such people who favor marriage for the clergy amount to half of American Catholics.

 

[JohnDamian]

According to polls, such people who favor marriage for the clergy amount to half of American Catholics.

Well about twenty percent of Catholic Priests are married. As well as a large number of Deacons who are also part of the Clergy.

So no informed Catholic would say that marraige and the clergy are nessecarily opposed, otherwise they would be slandering many non-latin-rite Priests, and many Deacons; and even St Peter; who was married as well as pope - and many others.

However; Catholics in good standing will respect the decision of latin-rite churches to compel priests to celibacy. Following John Paul II’s declaration in Pastores Dabo Vobis that Ordination “Configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church.”

 

[Leela]

Well about twenty percent of Catholic Priests are married. As well as a large number of Deacons who are also part of the Clergy.

So no informed Catholic would say that marraige and the clergy are nessecarily opposed, otherwise they would be slandering many non-latin-rite Priests, and many Deacons; and even St Peter; who was married as well as pope - and many others.

However; Catholics in good standing will respect the decision of latin-rite churches to compel priests to celibacy. Following John Paul II’s declaration in Pastores Dabo Vobis that Ordination “Configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church.”

According to polls, Catholics in good standing must be in the minority since most Catholics apparently do not respect at least one decision of latin-rite churches such as to compel priests to celibacy or to forbid use of contraceptives.

 

[JohnDamian]

According to polls, Catholics in good standing must be in the minority since most Catholics apparently do not respect at least one decision of latin-rite churches such as to compel priests to celibacy or to forbid use of contraceptives.

Thankfully the Church is not a democracy.

 

[djeter]

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

I’m not inclined to indulge laziness. If you read the article and have a question or disagreement, I would be pleased to reply. I will let the Pope speak for himself.

Regards

dj

 

[larkin31]

I’m not inclined to indulge laziness. If you read the article and have a question or disagreement, I would be pleased to reply. I will let the Pope speak for himself.

Regards

dj

I’ll answer: The Pope defined Natural Law as the rules written in the Bible. The document is about ethics and morality, not scientific “laws” of the natural world.

 

[Portrait]

According to polls, such people who favor marriage for the clergy amount to half of American Catholics.

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings.

Irrespective of what the polls say in the decadent and irreligious West, you must remember that the Catholic Church is both global and monolithic and I would venture to say that their are more Catholics, world-wide, who accept the right of the Latin Church to demand a celibate priesthood than there are those who challenge that right.

Be that as it may, it is does not matter how many dissidents refuse to accept the Latin Church’s ruling since the responsibility for deciding such issues does not fall to them. As John Damian said above “the Church is not a democracy”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings.

Irrespective of what the polls say in the decadent and irreligious West, …

where have I heard THAT before…?

 

[Portrait]

where have I heard THAT before…?

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings.

It is quite true that for polemical reasons men frequently do disparage the results of polls when it so suits them. However, that occurs on all sides of any debate as desperate efforts are made to validate arguments and present “incontrovertible evidence” that cannot be disproved.

That said, I must plead not guilty in this instance as I was not disputing the reliability or the results of the polls which Leela brought to our attention, I was merely pointing out that the Catholic Church is not based only in the West but is a world-wide Communion and that those polls are only representative of a relatively small segment of the “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings.

It is quite true that for polemical reasons men frequently do disparage the results of polls when it so suits them. However, that occurs on all sides of any debate as desperate efforts are made to validate arguments and present “incontrovertible evidence” that cannot be disproved.

That said, I must plead not guilty in this instance as I was not disputing the reliability or the results of the polls which Leela brought to our attention, I was merely pointing out that the Catholic Church is not based only in the West but is a world-wide Communion and that those polls are only representative of a relatively small segment of the “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Yes, I know.

Your disparagement of Western decadence reminded me of other religious fundamentalist condemnation of the West. I take such sweeping remarks with large doses of salt.

 

[djeter]

I’ll answer: The Pope defined Natural Law as the rules written in the Bible. The document is about ethics and morality, not scientific “laws” of the natural world.

The Pope reminds us that just at the time the human capacity is deciphering the rules and structures of matter resulting in the dominion of man over nature, we are losing the capacity of seeing the ethical message contained in being itself. Nature is no longer metaphysical, but only empirical.

He quotes the Apostle Paul (cf. Rom 2:14-15: When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them), lex naturalis 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.

Natural law is rooted in Church teaching, a product of scripture and tradition as well as the teachings of the magisterium.

dj

 

[larkin31]

The Pope reminds us that just at the time the human capacity is deciphering the rules and structures of matter resulting in the dominion of man over nature, we are losing the capacity of seeing the ethical message contained in being itself. Nature is no longer metaphysical, but only empirical.

He quotes the Apostle Paul (cf. Rom 2:14-15: When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them), lex naturalis 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.

Natural law is rooted in Church teaching, a product of scripture and tradition as well as the teachings of the magisterium.

dj

yes, and as he wrote, he defines “good” as that called for in the Bible and “evil” as that criticized in the Bible. His commentary on “Natural Law” is based on the writings of the Bible. Which is no surprise.

 

[djeter]

yes, and as he wrote, he defines “good” as that called for in the Bible and “evil” as that criticized in the Bible. His commentary on “Natural Law” is based on the writings of the Bible. Which is no surprise.

I would hate for anyone to read your comments and come away with the Holy Father pushing a *sola scriptura * approach to Natural Law. Your reading is simply not correct in this regard.

Thanks for the help though.

dj

 

[Portrait]

Yes, I know.

Your disparagement of Western decadence reminded me of other religious fundamentalist condemnation of the West. I take such sweeping remarks with large doses of salt.

Dear larkin31,

Western decadence is hardly a cause for celebration and even many non-Christian social commentators have bemoaned its untoward impact upon contemporary society, for it has also been the occasion of many unpleasant social problems.

How can one speak in glowing terms about current secularist humanism - a mish mash of reletivistic notions negating traditional values and moral absolutes? How can one rejoice at the efforts being made to undermine all human acknowledgement of the transcendent and to whittle away all human respect for objective restraints on the individualistic self?. This is happening in Western countries once regarded as the bulwarks of Christian civilization.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.”)

Yes but are these arguments correct. You have managed to create the illusion that if my argument can be applied to homosexuality then it should also be applied to celibacy. Has your argument succeeded in disproving my argument by pointing that out? No. It just means that it should also be applied to celibacy. Does it succeed in disproving the moral good of celibacy? It depends on the actual context and reasons for which people become celebrate, thus determining the moral legitimacy whether or not celibacy is correct within that particular context. But in the end its irrelevant, since none of this, however, changes the fact that humanities objective biological nature is heterosexual which is evident in the fact that we are men and women and we experience sexual pleasure as men and women. When we engage in heterosexual relationships we are being true to our objective nature or form. We are being true to the fact of our being men and women. Manhood and Womanhood is complimentary and exist for the fulfillment of each other. Thus when we develop sexual attraction to the opposite sex, this is a fulfillment of the fact that we are men and women.

When we engage in sexual relations or develop sexual attractions to, lets say, a tree, we are now doing something or feeling something that is disordered in relation to the fact our sexual form (man & women) which is evidently ordered to the biologically actuality of a heterosexual relationship, and not a tree. The same problem arise when we develop same sex attractions. Its a disorder of what we truly are (men and women). Nobody in their right mind would consider a sexual attraction to a tree a product of a healthy sexuality or something that is true to who you are; just as much nobody would consider a sexual attraction to a baby as being true to who you are sexually. If i wish you the greatest good of what you truly are, then i ought to wish the potential fulfillment of the fact that you are either and man or a women; because that is what you are, and anything else (a sexual attraction to a tree) is a disorder of what you truly are. Thus i am not justified in promoting the idea that a sexual attraction to a tree or the same sex is normal ordered and sexually healthy; since being sexually healthy or normal, objectively speaking, is determined by a conformity to your actual nature.

Now one can try to confuse the issue by accusing those who see the obvious of being prejudice or bigots, but this neither disproves my argument or justifies homosexuality. Propaganda aside, it amounts to nothing more than a dogmatic self-righteous attitude that isn’t back up by any ontological grounds in human experience. Your world view is inherently nihilistic and has nothing to say on the matter of right or wrong other than to assert that there is no right and wrong and thus all is permissible. So what moral truth can you possibly give to me without looking deceptive?

 

[larkin31]

I would hate for anyone to read your comments and come away with the Holy Father pushing a *sola scriptura * approach to Natural Law. Your reading is simply not correct in this regard.

Thanks for the help though.

dj

I did not use that term, nor would I, for the Pope. I read his document and summarized its basis. Its basis is Biblical teachings, which he quotes repeatedly as the justification for his remarks. It is really quite simple to follow; I have misread nothing there.

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin31,

Western decadence is hardly a cause for celebration and even many non-Christian social commentators have bemoaned its untoward impact upon contemporary society, for it has also been the occasion of many unpleasant social problems.

How can one speak in glowing terms about current secularist humanism - a mish mash of reletivistic notions negating traditional values and moral absolutes? How can one rejoice at the efforts being made to undermine all human acknowledgement of the transcendent and to whittle away all human respect for objective restraints on the individualistic self?. This is happening in Western countries once regarded as the bulwarks of Christian civilization.

From my point of view, secular humanism values truth over dishonesty, simple as that. Truth has its consequences, yes, as does freedom–like the story of Eden demonstrates.