Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[Portrait]

I’m sorry, John, but to me (and I think most people) saying “X is true now, therefore X ought to be true in the future” is a non sequitor. It is the the sort of argument that post-Enlightenment people who rejected the notion “we ruled over you in the past, therefore we ought to rule over you in the future” no longer find convincing.

By the way, since science is the tool we now use to tell us about nature, does that mean to you that science will now tell us how we ought to behave? This is the argument that I find dubious, but Sam Harris will present in his upcoming book. I think he is going to have a tough time making a case given that most of us can’t see how Ises can lead us to Oughts. But if there is anything to be made of Natural Law ( and I don’t think there is), I agree with Harris that it is scientists rather than theologians who will be best able to wield it since they are most capable of telling us what nature is like.

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings.

Natural science always has been and always will be impotent when it comes to providing an intellectually satisfying explanation to the permanent imperfections and evils of this world and human life. It may indeed tells us much regarding the functions and material of the physical universe, but it is utterly hopeless when it comes to explaining man’s inhumanity to man and the miseries of our experience. Clearly, it is the theologians that are most competent to tells us what human nature is like. As C.K. Chesterton once well remarked, men may deny the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, but almost the only thing they know about original innocence is that they have not got it.

Man’s personal and communal experience is a testimony to the fact of Original Sin, for which the following pointers can be adduced: a) the traditions of ancient peoples about a primordial tragedy and a Paradise Lost, for example, Prometheus and the Titans, Pandora’s box, Elysium, and the Golden Age; b) the sense of shame attached to the urges and requirements of man’s bodily nature and c) man’s inescapable cognizance of a propensity to wrongdoing even in the face of a clear knowledge as to what is right.

Leela, it is only by accepting the doctrine of Original Sin that we can fully understand why our world is blighted by so much wickedness and unhappiness. Owing to the frustration of God’s purpose by Adam’s sin, man is now burdened with a fallen human nature predisposed to sin, and is at odds even with the material surroundings in which he lives. Within himself, he feels the strong pull of evil passions, and, in the course of his life “in this vale of tears”, he has to contend with much sorrow and suffering. That this is man’s unhappy lot no one could seriously deny.

There is no conflict between genuine science and religion and there are many Catholics who are scientists and who see no such conflict. Actually, the really scientific mind acknowledges willingly that life is a much bigger thing than planet earth and that science per se can never satisfy the deepest needs of human nature.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[edwest2]

To Portrait -

Well said. We can observe the natural order all around us. Each particular type of bird has its own nature. An eagle is not a robin. Wen we see a robin, we know how it will behave. A squirrel will always jump onto the nearest tree and turn away from us.

The fundamental human sexuality around the world is for a man and a woman to have children and raise them. This is the consistent, historical truth. Any other sexual arrangement stands outside of this natural order, even if it is sometimes permitted by some. What is missing from the core of current Western sexuality is the concept of self-control. We have an environment of encouragement for allowing other forms of sexuality. It operates 24/7 and is pervasive.

It may be difficult but isn’t this idea a practical good? If I control myself, I am more likely to enter into a relationship that will be whole. If I have Same Sex Attraction, I should understand that it lacks the unitive and procreative aspects of natural, biological human complementary that is functionally true.

People can, and do, whatever they want – and it’s happening right now around the world. However, if we ask, how then shall we live? On what basis do we decide how to do this? If we look at the natural order, we see the unitive and procreative aspects are upheld.

Human beings are not animals who lack the ability to operate outside of their natures, and who lack complex self-awareness. Your dog certainly has affection toward you but beyond wagging his tail or sitting on your lap, he is constrained to these things by his nature.

Human beings have been given creative imaginations which brings us to the present. This creative imagination has allowed us to develop labor saving devices, vehicles for rapid travel and communication devices. It is also in our nature to kill, cheat, lie and manipulate. Obviously, we should choose to do good, but, to varying degrees, we all come short of meeting a high standard of good actions vs bad in a given day.

We have two options: relying on educated human beings is one. But these people will have the same tendency to violate ethical procedures or distort the facts for personal gain since each of us carries the potential to do so. Most scientific research in this country is done for Industry and the Military. In the pursuit of profits, harm can and does result.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Or, there are those of us who know and understand the created order as something that reflects the one who made it. We know that He has instructed us, being His creation. He knows our fallen nature and has given us the guidance we need to be truly human as we originally were. He is the way, the truth and the life. This is not trivial knowledge.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

To Portrait -

Well said. We can observe the natural order all around us. Each particular type of bird has its own nature. An eagle is not a robin. Wen we see a robin, we know how it will behave.

Really? You do? Always? Their behavior follows immutable law(s)?

A squirrel will always jump onto the nearest tree and turn away from us.

Except for the ones that don’t.

 

[larkin31]

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings.

Natural science always has been and always will be impotent when it comes to providing an intellectually satisfying explanation to the permanent imperfections and evils of this world and human life. It may indeed tells us much regarding the functions and material of the physical universe, but it is utterly hopeless when it comes to explaining man’s inhumanity to man and the miseries of our experience. Clearly, it is the theologians that are most competent to tells us what human nature is like. As C.K. Chesterton once well remarked, men may deny the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, but almost the only thing they know about original innocence is that they have not got it.

Man’s personal and communal experience is a testimony to the fact of Original Sin, for which the following pointers can be adduced: a) the traditions of ancient peoples about a primordial tragedy and a Paradise Lost, for example, Prometheus and the Titans, Pandora’s box, Elysium, and the Golden Age; b) the sense of shame attached to the urges and requirements of man’s bodily nature and c) man’s inescapable cognizance of a propensity to wrongdoing even in the face of a clear knowledge as to what is right.

Leela, it is only by accepting the doctrine of Original Sin that we can fully understand why our world is blighted by so much wickedness and unhappiness.

For me, it is that “only” that you use that is the error in your claim. You claim an exclusivity of access to moral understanding that is not born out by history or experience.

 

[Portrait]

For me, it is that “only” that you use that is the error in your claim. You claim an exclusivity of access to moral understanding that is not born out by history or experience.

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

“To consider the world in its length and breadth, its various history, the many races of man, their starts, their fortunes, their mutual alienation, their conflicts…the greatness and littleness of man, his far-reaching aims, his short duration, the curtain hung over his futurity, the disappointments of life, the defeat of good, the success of evil, physical pain, mental anguish, the prevalence and intensity of sin, the pervading idolatries, the corruptions, the dreary hopeless irreligion…- all this is a vision to dizzy and appal; and inflicts upon the mind the sense of a profound mystery, which is absolutely beyond human solution. What shall be said to this heart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can only answer, that either there is no Creator, or this living society of men is in a true sense discarded from His presence…- if there be a God, since there is a God, the human race is implicated in some terrible aboriginal calamity. It is out of joint with the purposes of its Creator. This is a fact, a fact as true as the fact of existence, and thus the doctrine of what is theologically called original sin becomes to me almost as certain as that the world exists, and as the existence of God” (*Apologia Pro Vita *Sua, J.H. Newman, pp. 242-3 (ch. V, Position since 1845).

Do you have an intellectual convincing alternative theory that is corroborated by history and experience?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

To Portrait -

Well said. We can observe the natural order all around us. Each particular type of bird has its own nature. An eagle is not a robin. Wen we see a robin, we know how it will behave. A squirrel will always jump onto the nearest tree and turn away from us.

The fundamental human sexuality around the world is for a man and a woman to have children and raise them. This is the consistent, historical truth. Any other sexual arrangement stands outside of this natural order, even if it is sometimes permitted by some. What is missing from the core of current Western sexuality is the concept of self-control. We have an environment of encouragement for allowing other forms of sexuality. It operates 24/7 and is pervasive.

It may be difficult but isn’t this idea a practical good? If I control myself, I am more likely to enter into a relationship that will be whole. If I have Same Sex Attraction, I should understand that it lacks the unitive and procreative aspects of natural, biological human complementary that is functionally true.

People can, and do, whatever they want – and it’s happening right now around the world. However, if we ask, how then shall we live? On what basis do we decide how to do this? If we look at the natural order, we see the unitive and procreative aspects are upheld.

Human beings are not animals who lack the ability to operate outside of their natures, and who lack complex self-awareness. Your dog certainly has affection toward you but beyond wagging his tail or sitting on your lap, he is constrained to these things by his nature.

Human beings have been given creative imaginations which brings us to the present. This creative imagination has allowed us to develop labor saving devices, vehicles for rapid travel and communication devices. It is also in our nature to kill, cheat, lie and manipulate. Obviously, we should choose to do good, but, to varying degrees, we all come short of meeting a high standard of good actions vs bad in a given day.

We have two options: relying on educated human beings is one. But these people will have the same tendency to violate ethical procedures or distort the facts for personal gain since each of us carries the potential to do so. Most scientific research in this country is done for Industry and the Military. In the pursuit of profits, harm can and does result.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Or, there are those of us who know and understand the created order as something that reflects the one who made it. We know that He has instructed us, being His creation. He knows our fallen nature and has given us the guidance we need to be truly human as we originally were. He is the way, the truth and the life. This is not trivial knowledge.

God bless,
Ed

Dear Ed,

Cordial greetings and nice to hear from you again. It is always a delight to read your contributions.

Indeed God has “given us the guidance we need to be truly human as we originally were”. Moreover, He enables us to turn to profit the very consequences of original guilt. He gives us grace to battle against fierce temptation and to win a reward all the greater in proportion to the severity of the struggle. He uses pain and sorrow to open our hearts to tenderness and sympathy, to teach us that this world affords no lasting happiness or solid joys, and to make us look with the eye of hope to our true home (Heaven) where He “will wipe away every tear…and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain” Pain is indeed a cruel discipline which He would have spared us, but, under His loving providence, it is become a sort of plant whose root is bitter, but whose fruit is sweet.

Could secular humanism with its relativistic notions, negation of traditional values and moral absolutes ever provide us such comfort in the midst of the changes and chances of this fleeting world?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[larkin31]

Dear larkin31,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

“To consider the world in its length and breadth, its various history, the many races of man, their starts, their fortunes, their mutual alienation, their conflicts…the greatness and littleness of man, his far-reaching aims, his short duration, the curtain hung over his futurity, the disappointments of life, the defeat of good, the success of evil, physical pain, mental anguish, the prevalence and intensity of sin, the pervading idolatries, the corruptions, the dreary hopeless irreligion…- all this is a vision to dizzy and appal; and inflicts upon the mind the sense of a profound mystery, which is absolutely beyond human solution. What shall be said to this heart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can only answer, that either there is no Creator, or this living society of men is in a true sense discarded from His presence…- if there be a God, since there is a God, the human race is implicated in some terrible aboriginal calamity. It is out of joint with the purposes of its Creator. This is a fact, a fact as true as the fact of existence, and thus the doctrine of what is theologically called original sin becomes to me almost as certain as that the world exists, and as the existence of God” (*Apologia Pro Vita *Sua, J.H. Newman, pp. 242-3 (ch. V, Position since 1845).

Do you have an intellectual convincing alternative theory that is corroborated by history and experience?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

What you quoted is not a “theory,” and I do indeed have an alternate opinion. But it is not for this thread, which is about homosexuality and Natural Law. I don’t like to argue about whether there is a god or not; it is a futile discussion, and I respect religious faith and religious believers: I am not out to persuade them out of their faith.

 

[Leela]

Dear larkin31,

Do you have an intellectual convincing alternative theory that is corroborated by history and experience?

Alternative theory of morality? Sure. Moral concerns are our concerns for the well-being of others. We become more moral as we expand our circles of moral concern and become better taking into account the needs of more and more people, by better understanding what those needs are, and by becoming better able to meet those needs. We are more than what we once were and are not limited in what we may become by any static Human Nature or Natural Law. Rather than a limited intrinsic nature, humanity is a promising project whose possibilities are not constrained by the past so much as by our imaginations and inspirations for what we can make of ourselves. There is no doubt that Jesus was one figure who inspired us to grow morally along with Socrates and the Buddha, but with luck, (and with hope that our current practices may help nurture such people) other more modern visionaries like Gandhi, King, and Mandela will not be in short supply to help inspire the rest of us to continue to make our futures better than the past–better in ways that we can not even now imagine. One thing I think we can confidently say about such a future is that it will not be a matter of conforming to some idealized version of the past (since we know too much about our failings throughout history) but will be a reaching out hopefully toward the future to extend ourselves and become what we have so far never been.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

According to the catechism of the Catholics…

“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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.”

Apparently, what is depraved about homosexual sex is that it is “closed to the gift of life.” Are not many heterosexual acts also so closed. For example, if a woman has undergone a hysterectomy or is infertile for some other reason, is it intrinsically disordered for her to have sexual relations with her husband since such congress cannot lead to life?

 

[larkin31]

According to the catechism of the Catholics…

“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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.”

Apparently, what is depraved about homosexual sex is that it is “closed to the gift of life.” Are not many heterosexual acts also so closed. For example, if a woman has undergone a hysterectomy or is infertile for some other reason, is it intrinsically disordered for her to have sexual relations with her husband since such congress cannot lead to life?

Nor can one “open” an infertile couple back up to “the gift of life” through IVF. We can regenerate a dead person with shock paddles, but we can’t combine the eggs and sperm of a married couple artificially so that they can carry out God’s request to multiply.

Beats me

 

[edwest2]

To Portrait -

Thank you for your kind comment.

As a person who creates fiction, I understand that a great many possibilities exist. Even in our fallen world, natural law still exists. The world continues to its final destination.

In a world where, for some, the only absolute is no absolutes, the desire to experiment exists. Whatever is imagined not only should be done but promoted. Without any ground of truth, there is no solid foundation. Radical individualism is the goal. Regarding each of us, who, having heard the truth, seeks to run away from it? If men have such great knowledge, why do experts say one day, eating or drinking Z will kill you, and three months later, another group of experts say eating or drinking Z is good for you?

Truth is truth. And we know the author of all truth. Today, it seems, truth varies based on which expert you consult. I’ve seen it in writing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[davidv]

According to the catechism of the Catholics…

“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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.”

Apparently, what is depraved about homosexual sex is that it is "closed to the gift of life." Are not many heterosexual acts also so closed. For example, if a woman has undergone a hysterectomy or is infertile for some other reason, is it intrinsically disordered for her to have sexual relations with her husband since such congress cannot lead to life?

You forgot to meantion the other things on the list of why it is wrong. I highlighted them in bold. Infertility is a state of being not an action, so none of these things apply.

 

[larkin31]

You forgot to meantion the other things on the list of why it is wrong. I highlighted them in bold. Infertility is a state of being not an action, so none of these things apply.

NFP is an “action”

seems like walking a moral tight-rope to me if the issue is “action” vs “condition”

 

[davidv]

NFP is an “action”

seems like walking a moral tight-rope to me if the issue is “action” vs “condition”

How is NFP related to Homosexuality?

 

[larkin31]

NFP is an “action”

seems like walking a moral tight-rope to me if the issue is “action” vs “condition”

I used your definition and applied it to a case where the RCC condones purposefully infertile “action”. My point, I thought, was clear.

 

[davidv]

I used your definition and applied it to a case where the RCC condones purposefully infertile “action”. My point, I thought, was clear.

Well its not. Because it doesn’t seem to me that you have clear understanding of the difference between fertile and procreative. They are not equal. So, you have misapplied the definition.

 

[Leela]

You forgot to meantion the other things on the list of why it is wrong.

Ok, we can talk about other reasons, but I am assuming that the fact that homosexual sex is not open to life is thought to be sufficient to say that it is immoral. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Infertility is a state of being not an action, so none of these things apply.

Same sex attraction is also a state of being, right? It is just the act of sexual relations between same sex action that is morally wrong on the basis of not being open to life. But heterosexual sex is also not “open to life.” For example, sex between an elderly heterosexual couple is not “open to life” since it would be impossible for a post menopausal woman to conceive.

 

[Leela]

Well its not. Because it doesn’t seem to me that you have clear understanding of the difference between fertile and procreative. They are not equal. So, you have misapplied the definition.

Could you please explain the difference?

 

[edwest2]

The following is from the Catholic Answers Library, the title is Gay Marriage: Special Report.

What about childless heterosexual couples? How does an infertile heterosexual marriage differ from a same-sex marriage?

One big difference is that the heterosexual couple enjoys sexual complementarity, and the fullness that brings into their relationship, even if they cannot have children.

Similarly, sex after menopause or when suffering from other forms of infertility do not divide the unitive from the procreative. The couple’s act is still ordered toward procreation; it is simply that procreation will not occur.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Abu]

Leela
For example, if a woman has undergone a hysterectomy or is infertile for some other reason, is it intrinsically disordered for her to have sexual relations with her husband since such congress cannot lead to life?

No. The unitive end is present and no barrier is deliberately placed.
Simple, for NBR: As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate. To use the infertile periods only or without serious reasons would be thwarting the purpose of procreation, obviously. It’s not rocket science. This is further confirmed by Christ’s Church.

The disorder of homosexual acts parallels the deliberate placing of a material or chemical barrier to the procreative act between male and female.