Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[Sarpedon]

The Catholic church teaches that morality is not dependent on religion.

Source please?

Morality is dependent on God’s nature. Morality cannot exist independent of God. Whether or not morality is dependent on “religion” depends on how you use the phrase.

So for you a good nights sleep is a better reason than overpopulation and the consequent death of millions for ‘perverting a faculty’?

The problem of overpopulation, if there is one, is solved by Natural Family Planning. NFP is a method of determining fertility cycles, so abstinence can be used during the relatively short fertile period.

When there is sufficient reason (overpopulation may meet this criteria), there is nothing immoral about NFP. Since there is a method of morally controlling births, your problem is no reason to resort to contraception.

Remember, the problem with contraception is not that it controls and spaces births. The problem is that it seeks to seperate the dual aspects of sex.

There is significant debate as to whether overpopulation is a real problem and whether it is legitimate grounds for NFP. I don’t want to get in to that here, but I want to clarify that the above is based on the principal that overpopulation is a real problem that should be remidied. The central idea is the same nonetheless.

Even if overpopulation was not an issue the unitive aspect of sex is still a good. Why shouldn’t one pervert the faculty for the reason of expressing love. Surely this a noble end and a better reason than a good night’s sleep.

What is “love?”

True love is found by dying to the self for the sake of another. If two people want to love each other, but are not willing to love the fruit of their love, then they are being selfish. The want to be able to love each other while denying the love they owe to the fruit of their love.

The difference between NFP and contraception is that contraception tries to alter sex while NFP simply abstains from sex during the key time. This is a subtle but important difference. In contraception, the couple tries to take half but deny the other half. In NFP, they take the whole or nothing at that time. If the couple really loves each other, they will not try to give half of what each needs to the other person.

 

[utunumsint]

The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Firstly I have never read a single convincing defence of the most basic premises of Catholic sexual ethics and believe me I have looked.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? What good does it destroy? It seems that this basic principle is indefensible unless one appeals to some fallacious medieval relic of a teleology. Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

Common defences of Catholic morality fail miserably. ‘The natural end of the genitals is procreation’ so what? Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?

More sophisticated defences remain unconvincing ‘procreation is a basic human good, and one should not act to prevent something good from occurring’. This defence fails too. Why should I respect every basic good in every act?

The second doctrine concerning sex, that it is unitive perhaps is more convincing. But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

All purely physical acts (it seems) only subjectively create emotions. How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion? Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love? Then why cannot actors engage in intercourse without feeling love? Perhaps subjectively most of the time this is not possible, but it does not follow that it is never possible.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

Have you read Pope JPII’s Love and Responsibility? I think you could call it the Philosophy of the Body underpinning his Theology of the body. He adopted the personalist philosophical school and argued based on universal subective experience (at least as far as subjective experience can be universalised). His argument, as far as I could understand it, is that denying the procreative aspect of sexual intimacy made one’s sexuality an object of utilitarian pleasure, which is opposed to the dignity of the person. Catholic sexual ethic places a premium value on the virtue of self control, which contraception sabotages in favour of consequence free pleasure.

It has been a while since I read the book, and it was a difficult read, but it was certainly worth the effort.

God bless,
Ut

 

[agangbern]

Even if overpopulation was not an issue the unitive aspect of sex is still a good. Why shouldn’t one pervert the faculty for the reason of expressing love. Surely this a noble end and a better reason than a good night’s sleep.

The dictionary defines “pervert” as follows:

“1 a: to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right :”

Philosophy says that the end does not justify the means. Now, if one should **pervert his faculty **to attain good, that is, unitive aspect, then the means employed is inconsistent with the end.

Therefore, perverting the faculty, or contraception, cannot be justified. And therefore, it is the one which is indefensible not only philosophically but more so theologically.

 

[LilyM]

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? What good does it destroy? It seems that this basic principle is indefensible unless one appeals to some fallacious medieval relic of a teleology. Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

It harms every member of the human race by cheapening the value of life in toto. In other words by postulating that mere convenience is a reason for snuffing out a conceived human being (and embryologists agree that an embryo IS human from the moment of conception).

Once one accepts this, then what is to stop one from postulating that mere convenience isn’t a good enough reason to snuff out the elderly, the seriously ill, the mentally and physically disabled? In fact anyone who has a job you want or a house you want? If your convenience hardens your conscience enough to kill an innocent babe in the womb, then killing the not-so-innocent and much more inconvenient elderly or otherwise incapacitated relative is a natural progression.

Do you want people being able to kill you when your life becomes inconvenient to them? If you do, it shows how infinitely cheap a price you put upon yourself and your fellow humans.

Do you really think that it’s a coincidence that euthanasia has become more advocated, and more popular (and legalised) in the last few decades along with abortion? Not a bit - both spring from the same essentially life-cheapening mentality that is behind contraception. It’s the start of a slippery slope, my friend.

More than that, it cheapens the value of marriage - and sex itself - by divorcing sex (within and outside marriage) from not one but both of the essential functions of the sexual act. Sex with contraception - even within marriage - is neither fully unitive (it’s not a total giving of oneself to the other) nor procreative.

And we see its effect on perceptions of marriage - AND sex - with the explosion of divorce, legalisation of things as patently against the natural law as INCEST (now legal in certain circumstances in countries from Portugal to Japan) and so on.

More sophisticated defences remain unconvincing ‘procreation is a basic human good, and one should not act to prevent something good from occurring’. This defence fails too. Why should I respect every basic good in every act?

Isn’t that the definition, really, of a basic good? In what way is it a basic good if it can be ignored whenever we want?

All purely physical acts (it seems) only subjectively create emotions. How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion? Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love? Then why cannot actors engage in intercourse without feeling love? Perhaps subjectively most of the time this is not possible, but it does not follow that it is never possible.

The church’s moral teaching is not about ‘feelings’ really. It’s about intended purposes of the sex act (and the union between husband and wife is much more than an emotional bond). And morally acceptable ways to achieve those purposes.

One who seeks money to pay their bills has no right to achieve that good purpose by immoral means such as selling drugs or mugging innocent little old ladies. Neither does one who for a serious reason wants not to have children (and being genuinely financially unable to support them is a good reason) have the right to do so by using the immoral means of surgically or chemically or by bits of plastic or latex interfering with their natural reproductive function.

By the by, the number of actors who have flings with movie co-stars is some evidence against your proposition that kissing etc doesn’t produce emotion in and of itself - Brangelina being exhibit A.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

‘Secular’ being the operative word. Most of these are not people of faith, certainly not of Catholic faith. Of course they’ve hardened their hearts against the idea either that God exists or that there is an objective moral code which He determines for us.

Even Pascal, cynical as he was, determined that it is certainly to every man’s advantage to at least behave as if God exists (since He may in fact exist) and abide by revealed religious moral codes, than to act as if He doesn’t and suffer the eternally awful consequnces of our rejection of His possibility if we’re wrong!

 

[Sarpedon]

This is not true, Catholic morality is justified by natural law it is not intended to rest on theological premises.

Not completely. The basic foundations for moral judgements are written directly into our hearts, but we still need theology to know exactly how those principals translate into every individual situation.

For example, the basic law that we ought not to deny love to those who rightfully claim it is written into our heart. Exactly how that command translates into individual sexual behaviors requires that we look to God’s direct revelation through theology.

 

[Spirithound]

Isn’t it more likley that Catholic morality is false rather than postulating that virtually every academic philosopher is somehow blinded by lust.

I wouldn’t consider that more likely at all. But isn’t simply determining the likelihood a very subjective and unreliable measurement? Look at the rape rate. Increased several times over over the last few decades.

 

[HappyRevert]

The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Firstly I have never read a single convincing defence of the most basic premises of Catholic sexual ethics and believe me I have looked.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? What good does it destroy? It seems that this basic principle is indefensible unless one appeals to some fallacious medieval relic of a teleology. Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

Common defences of Catholic morality fail miserably. ‘The natural end of the genitals is procreation’ so what? Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?

More sophisticated defences remain unconvincing ‘procreation is a basic human good, and one should not act to prevent something good from occurring’. This defence fails too. Why should I respect every basic good in every act?

The second doctrine concerning sex, that it is unitive perhaps is more convincing. But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

All purely physical acts (it seems) only subjectively create emotions. How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion? Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love? Then why cannot actors engage in intercourse without feeling love? Perhaps subjectively most of the time this is not possible, but it does not follow that it is never possible.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

I have to say Pete, that not so long ago, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly and piped up in my support of your position. Fortunately for me, I have been given the grace to investigate exactly what the Catholic church’s position is and seen the incredible wisdom within it.

The first refutation I could provide is the prophetic pronouncements (I like alliteration ) from Humanae Vitae. It stated in there, that once we remove the procreative aspect of sex, we will end up denigrating women (using them as sexual objects and not respecting them. Look around you to see the fruits of that one.), having those in power controlling people by controlling how many children they are allowed to birth (China) and the disintegration of the family (50% divorce rate certainly supports that)
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM see Paragraph 17

My next refutation is population control. Take a look at the demise of Europe and Japan that is coming. This is completely based on low birth rates - alarming birth rates that have demographers saying the Europe we know will be gone in a generation because the natives are re-populating at way below replacement values. Fortunately for Muslims, they are reproducing at a healthy rate so will be taking Europe over in not too long. This is purely the demographers saying it and not a moral issue, but a purely pragmatic one. If you wish to limit your family, feel free to use NFP, but the overpopulation arguments right now don’t hold water.

My third refutation is that you are asking “what good does it destroy” as if we don’t already know the answer. One of the reasons that abortion was allowed in Roe vs. Wade is because the assumption was you need to be able to do something if your birth control fails. So what do you do with your “unwanted fetus”, well of course you kill it. I would say millions of deaths per year is a pretty horrible answer of “what good does it destroy”.

Also, the Catholic position is the only one I have seen that is completely unified. The Church says that sexual intercourse is only valid within marriage. This means we don’t need to “hate” or marginalize those with homosexual tendencies. We simply apply the rules equally across all people. They cannot marry someone of the same gender and therefore should not have sexual encounters since by definition they would all be outside of marriage. We don’t condone between any unmarried persons and therefore it is egalitarian.

We revere God in all of us. We are all His creation so of course we should welcome more “creations” as much as we can. We revere these blessings called children and try to provide them with the most stable environment for their physical, emotional and psychological development - a family with a mother and father. Of course things happen that make that impossible, but that is the paradigm for which we strive. This entire position is a cohesive whole.

Since I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s, I have seen the fruits of your logic and it isn’t pretty. I beg you to prayerfully read Humanae Vitae and listen to Christopher West’s Naked without Shame which explains the Theology of the Body. It will change you - I know it did me.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

…Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?..

Since we all seek what is good,
(even if it turns out that it wasn’t good)
Goodness is our natural end,
Which we try not to act against.

Since Goodness = Existence = Unity
And
Existence and Unity give existence
Then
A good sexual union tries to make giving existence possible.

 

[Dameedna]

Contraception is a manifestation of rebellion against God! For Christ came that “you may have life, and have it more abundantly.”.
But now here comes you wanting to prevent life! Rebelliousness is a scheme of satan!

He wasn’t talking about you making babies. He was talking about your spiritual life, for goodness sake.

He didnt’ say you may have life so you can CREATE it abundantly. He came, so that your OWN life, would be more abundant.

This is what you get when you pick and choose bible passages to support a position.

 

[Dameedna]

This is just fundamentally wrong. “Catholic morality” does not exist any more than do dragons or unicorns.

The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et Ratio 7)

*As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. *(Veritatis Splendor 95)

Ender

So the church never claims to have created the truths, but that they exist, and the church is the one that “has” those truths.

In otherwords. You have no way of knowing the difference between a church that has truths, and a church that claims it.

How…can this not be obvious to people?

 

[agangbern]

He wasn’t talking about you making babies. He was talking about your spiritual life, for goodness sake.

He didnt’ say you may have life so you can CREATE it abundantly. He came, so that your OWN life, would be more abundant.

This is what you get when you pick and choose bible passages to support a position.

Why? You mean to say making babies has no relation to our spiritual life?
You think spiritual life refers only to kneeling in the Church?
That kind of belief is absolutely false!

 

[Dameedna]

The first refutation I could provide is the prophetic pronouncements (I like alliteration ) from Humanae Vitae. It stated in there, that once we remove the procreative aspect of sex, we will end up denigrating women (using them as sexual objects and not respecting them. Look around you to see the fruits of that one.), having those in power controlling people by controlling how many children they are allowed to birth (China) and the disintegration of the family (50% divorce rate certainly supports that)
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM see Paragraph 17

1. Treating the act of sex as a purely pro-creative act completely dehumanizes the experience of sex entirely.

To say that human sexual desire is purely for pro-creation is to relegate us to the rats and the mice. We desire to pro-create. So do the lowest forms of life. How wonderfully the catholic church views this act. It is complely and utterly disrespectful of natures amazing ability to create efficiency wherever it goes.

Sex, results in children at the right time. If that was it’s entire purpose for humans, we’d simply go on heat and be done with it like most animals. It’s primary job is not however childbirth, it is to create a bond between two humans, so they stay together and raise the child in security. To deny sex to a couple, is to deny it’s primary purpose.

And yes, this has been observed, which is obviously why humans still desire sex, beyond menopause. If it was purely for pro-creation, then those that could not, would not.

It is a religiouis belief, put in the guise of Natural theory and denies what we understand about human nature through science?hmmm…

1. Women being used as sex object - This is an extremely complex issue, and to claim that a woman is degrading herself by enjoying a healthy sex-life outside of marriage is to degrade the woman. It is to tell her, that she should be valued by her “lack” of sexual endeavour. As though her desire for sex with another, relegates her to a sex object.

This is the reason why feminists fought their fight. This is the reason you have freedom as a woman. And you will give all that up, by allowing the church to tell you how you should be respected?

Natural law does not offer a solution, it negates the problem and blames the human, when the natural law fails. It’s the decision that one pope made about this law that is the problem.

1. Divorce. As soon as divorce was legal, it was rampant. You can either say that with a Legal decree, humanity suddenly became evil, or you can recognize that most humans divorced because they made the very wrong choice in partners, and regret it later.

A more sensible and rational approach would be firstly to teach ethics as a whole, and then sexual and relationship ethics.

Then, encourage people, with respect toward themselves and a partner, to ensure the person they are commiting their life to, and their childrens future to is the right person.

All my friends have gone down this path, and their marriages are wonderful and respectful.

That would be the rational approach. And it has nothing to do with some covenant they make with God. When divorce was allowed by the church? people took it in abundance. Obvioiusly…we got something wrong.

All the church does, is make very naive and shallow excuses for human behaviour in a way that supports their doctrine. Dig a little deeper if you want truth.

My next refutation is population control. Take a look at the demise of Europe and Japan that is coming. This is completely based on low birth rates - alarming birth rates that have demographers saying the Europe we know will be gone in a generation because the natives are re-populating at way below replacement values.

As we all should. There are simply too many humans who desire too much and will not give up their material lives now for the future. If you don’t believe me, give up every electical appliance in your home including this computer. That’s what it will take for all humans to save ourselves.

Walk the walk. Can you do it?

These Europeans are submitting to a better future, by suffering today. They may want 6 kids, but they will have 2. So that the 2 they have, do not have to suffer through a highly polluted and destoryed planet.

It is with great honesty and integrity that they do this. They negate their basic human desires for the greater good.

How the church could turn this immense human desire(for children) and sacrifice into a sin shows just how far they will go, to maintain their power over others and their doctrine of truth.

Good thing, most catholic Europeans are ignoring the vatican.

Fortunately for Muslims, they are reproducing at a healthy rate so will be taking Europe over in not too long.

A yes. This is the fear mongering I’ve heard before.

Please, christian women…turn your body and womb into a christian making baby machine because the only value you and your children have, is to ensure the muslims do not take over the world.

This…is the most of all dehumanizing statments and it is common amongst even the most kindest devout catholics I know.

What have you people turned christianity into?

 

[Dameedna]

Why? You mean to say making babies has no relation to our spiritual life?

No, I’m saying the statment had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life, but with your own life.

He was trying to free the Jew’s of their bondage of religious laws. He was trying to give them an abundant life that was filled with love, and not religious clerics.

It had absolutely nothing to do with babies. My response was toward a poster who believed it had something to do with children.

 

[agangbern]

No, I’m saying the statment had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life, but with your own life.

He was trying to free the Jew’s of their bondage of religious laws. He was trying to give them an abundant life that was filled with love, and not religious clerics.

It had absolutely nothing to do with babies. My response was toward a poster who believed it had something to do with children.

Why? Do you think that when two people have sex they are attempting to create life? You mean to say there are now other creators of life aside from God? You seem simply confused about life.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm?

Hi Pete,
I think you are right to say that natural law alone, without belief in God, doesn’t logically support the sentence in bold. Have you read JP2’s Theology of the Body? Like you, I could make no sense of Catholic sexual ethics until I started studying theology of the body ( I accepted the teachings on faith rather than reason).

Here is the most important point I took from TOB:

Our sexuality isn’t just another feature of the human body, it is special because God allows us to participate with him in the act of Creation. The love of the spouses for each other mirrors the Love of God which brings creation about. There is something very mysterious and symbolic in the sexual act because it is like the exchange of love which takes place within the Trinity. Natural law helps us to see God’s purpose for marriage and sex, but it isn’t enough to derive all of Catholic sexual morality. This understanding is also rooted in Christ’s teaching about marriage, not just natural law.

I won’t try any more than that to summarize JP2, a lot of it went over my head

 

[HappyRevert]

Dameedna - I tried to quote your posting, but it got too long, so this is a reply to the one you posted to me.

Actually we agree that sex is supposed to be a unitive act and not just procreative. We believe that it is a unifying act that is so important it shouldn’t ever be done outside of marriage. We believe that what makes it so special is we are allowed to partake in creation itself. Creation of another human, which was made in God’s image…Since we believe that so strongly, we don’t want to remove ourselves from the creative act.

I would like to see your source that PRIMARILY the purpose of sex being to bond people together and not procreation. I don’t think you can prove that. You can pull out studies, but there is no way to conduct a true experiment with a testable hypothesis so it isn’t science. We could have a different discussion about how current opinion likes to disguise itself as science, but to be completely strict about it - no testable hypothesis or controlled study. No science.

1. I will admit for #2 I draw from painful experience and from what I have seen. Most women I have seen who are sexually active end up in the end being used by men as sexual pawns. They are not treated as entire people. This is also equally wrong for them to treat men as sexual pawns which I have seen as well.

I use the analogy as this. We have a well to draw our water from unlike most people where we live. Since I know it is sitting there in my yard, I am extremely careful about chemicals being put in my lawn and what happens near my well. I am also painfully aware when we have a drought or something that might damage our well because our entire supply of water draws from that one well. Pretty much everyone I know who doesn’t have a well around here has no concept that water comes from somewhere and doesn’t care about droughts or anything else - simply because they are completely removed from the supply of the water - not because they are deficient in some way. When there is a drought they grump they can’t wash their car, and they dump huge amounts of chemicals into their yards which eventually does get into their water supply, but they don’t connect it. It may be a weak analogy, but removing the procreative act from sex works in somewhat the same way. When you remove the procreative aspect from it, you start to remove people from the source and they forget why there are stipulations like sex within marriage and why we treasure our reproductive abilities.

I am a pro-life feminist. I didn’t want those women to fight for equal rights so I could have sex. I want equal rights so I can make equal pay for equal work. I want equal rights so I can have fair opportunities both socially and economically. It has nothing to do with sex at all. I hope women didn’t become suffragettes so I could have sex with whomever I want - I think they did it for social and economic reasons, not so I could sleep around.

Lastly, I don’t see why you completely skip over Natural Family Planning as a way to limit births. The Vatican never said to have as many children as your uterus can bear.

1. The Catholic church calls your proposal to prevent divorce pre-Cana classes. I agree they are a wonderful thing that will certainly help lower divorce rate when they are taught properly. We agree on that one.

I don’t understand what you were saying about Europeans. It is not provable, but from when I lived there (gross generalization I know) it wasn’t that people pined for children, but that they simply weren’t interested in being tied down. This is contrasted by South Americans (yes I also lived there) who in general of course adore children and do really respect having them.

I wasn’t attempting fear mongering when I brought up demographics. I was attempting to refute his argument that we must use artificial birth control because we are overpopulating the planet. The demographics don’t support that currently. Not only that, but when we were told to “go forth and multiply” it is not only for spiritual reasons, but pragmatic ones as well. Just like Jews not eating pork - it is for their health too (trichinosis).

If you could please explain these as well “All the church does, is make very naive and shallow excuses for human behaviour in a way that supports their doctrine. Dig a little deeper if you want truth.” and “How the church could turn this immense human desire(for children) and sacrifice into a sin shows just how far they will go, to maintain their power over others and their doctrine of truth.” The Vatican doesn’t think the human desire for children is sinful so I’m confused about it and I’m not understanding what shallow excuses you think they are providing.

Thanks

 

[CapIV]

On a side note, if Catholic morality is so plainly the truth then why are there virtually no modern secular philosophers that embrace its supposedly indubitable foundations?

Because when they do, they usually cease to be secular philosophers. Further, modernists today tend not to study Ancient or Medieval philosophy.

Natural Law is impossible without God (even though atheists who don’t want to appear like nihilists often claim otherwise.) Since Natural Law is nothing else but man’s participation in the Eternal Law through Reason, and the Eternal Law IS God, then there can be no Natural Law without the Eternal Law.

And it should also be noted, that pretty much all religious groups supported Catholic sexual morality until the 20th century.

Based on your initial post, you should really read some Aristotle before you read anything else. You don’t seem to understand the basic concept of what makes something moral or not. Nor do you seem to comprehend the terms properly. Perhaps get some books with notes in them.

The basic idea, is that everything has a function or vocation. (hellloooooo evolutionists). Since man has the unique ability to reason, we have the ability to find out what the function or nature of something is. It follows that we ought to perform functions well. For example, man is a social creature. Therefore, it is moral to foster proper social relationships. Stealing destroys social relationships. Therefore, stealing is immoral.

Without basis in Natural Law, (which is a participation of the Eternal Law as said above) there is no way to possibly explain why anything is moral or not. Which is why all non-Catholic philosophers for all their wit are never able to adequately answer where there system comes from. Most modernists just sit around, make up their own definitions, and go “whoa I was totally thinking before and this sounds cool”.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Hi Pete,
I think you are right to say that natural law alone, without belief in God, doesn’t logically support the sentence in bold. Have you read JP2’s Theology of the Body? Like you, I could make no sense of Catholic sexual ethics until I started studying theology of the body ( I accepted the teachings on faith rather than reason).

Here is the most important point I took from TOB:

Our sexuality isn’t just another feature of the human body, it is special because God allows us to participate with him in the act of Creation. The love of the spouses for each other mirrors the Love of God which brings creation about. There is something very mysterious and symbolic in the sexual act because it is like the exchange of love which takes place within the Trinity. Natural law helps us to see God’s purpose for marriage and sex, but it isn’t enough to derive all of Catholic sexual morality. This understanding is also rooted in Christ’s teaching about marriage, not just natural law.

I won’t try any more than that to summarize JP2, a lot of it went over my head

I agree…

From a Catholic perspective…

Unity, which give existence
Is given the name “God”, “Holy Spirit,” “Love,” etc…

But to name Unity as “God,”
And not just as a concept,
Would require some personal encounter with God.
Other than logic alone.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

By the way,
Happy World Marriage Day!

 

[selylidne]

The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Unfortunately, Yes, the philosophy underpinning modern explanations of Catholic sexual morality is incoherent and based on unsound premises. Read Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body to get a taste of how worthless the reasoning is. For better reasoning, go back to earlier thinkers who didn’t try to reinvent Catholic tradition in their own image.