Catholic Sexual Morality

[Rau]

… When a certain doctrine of human nature does not actually correspond to all humans, then I think it’s safe to say the Church has not yet grasped all of reality on the issue.

I think it is a reasonable expectation that the Church might address or give its understanding or expectations for those persons of unclear or ambiguous sex.

But the OP seems to want to reach further than that - he seems to want to pursue an idea that God’s design incorporates more than 2 sexes and thus the existence of such persons is proof of some new view of morality. Perhaps I speculate on that point, but the OP has not answered the questions I put to him seeking to understand his thinking in that area.

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #99
It is not enough to say that human nature is a certain when, simultaneously, many humans in reality don’t experience it that way. When a certain doctrine of human nature does not actually correspond to all humans, then I think it’s safe to say the Church has not yet grasped all of reality on the issue.

The peculiar idea that “the Church has not grasped the reality on the issue” of human nature, fails to realize what She does – that human nature is fallen due to Original Sin – at the dawn of humanity, hence the numerous tendencies to distortions of the normal.

**CCC #400: **
“The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.”

Thus the brokenness of humanity results in the evident aberrations which do occur. Aberrations are not normality and cannot be accepted as such.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Are you positing that, say, homosexuality, or a person with an odd chromosomal makeup, or a transgendered person is merely a (relatively unusual) instance of the normal (“as designed”) variations of sex?

What motivation, or what evidence, would lead you to favour that hypothesis over the notion that these persons have experienced some form of defect in their makeup?

And by the way, are there moral implications arising from how these unususual instances arise?

I am indeed suggesting that unusual variations in our species are not inherently design malfunctions. I think to assume otherwise without overwhelming evidence would be hubristic at the very least. To judge any part of God’s creation, any one of his children, are defective, seems irresponsible, especially when we assign additional moral judgements to a persons physical nature. My motivation is to understand the existence of our wonderous universe in light of both observed phenomenon and the Scriptures.

What are the moral implications? That is what I am here to discover. I suspect they are significant, as I’ve intimated in my discussion of complementarism.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

The peculiar idea that “the Church has not grasped the reality on the issue” of human nature, fails to realize what She does – that human nature is fallen due to Original Sin – at the dawn of humanity, hence the numerous tendencies to distortions of the normal.

**CCC #400: **
“The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.”

Thus the brokenness of humanity results in the evident aberrations which do occur. Aberrations are not normality and cannot be accepted as such.

What if the real aberration is the way we have divided and ranked our genders by charging our relationships with “lust and domination”? What if our efforts to divide ourselves from our original harmony and unity is the aberration, not those rare souls who walk between the two sides of a fallen creation?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Aristotle and Plato also affirmed what is the norm of human sexuality.

In fact, you will have to search long and hard to find a major philosopher throughout history who has made the case for sodomy, never mind same-sex marriage.

Only in the perverse times in which we live has the idea even been entertained, and it is a vindication of Chesterton’s famous remark that he had long since grown weary of people who thought that what you believed on Thursday must be better than what you believed on Tuesday.

Aristotle wrote that only light-skinned women experienced climax or produced discharge, and that discharge was her contribution to offspring just like male semen. We’ve altered our views there. Plato argued that an army be comprised of same-sex lovers in his Symposium. Don’t ask, don’t tell? On Tuesday we believed the sun orbited the earth. “New” may not equal “better”, but does that mean we cannot be open to refining our understanding as more information becomes available?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Ultimately, sexual complementarity is not about ‘roles’ or about feelings. It is about anatomy and biology. Only a man and a woman can engage in marital sex. Only a man and a woman can procreate children. That is why civilization continues. (One might note that with the continuing drastic decline in total fertility rates around the world, continuance of civilization is no sure thing.)

Right, but infertile couples, even those absolutely and knowingly incapable of producing offspring, can still have a sacramental marriage so long as they are of opposite sex - without their desire for each other being condemned as disordered. We attach a great deal of moral weight to these issues.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

So, the bottom line might be, that Catholic sexual morality points to the good that God reveals. It is not a man made construct designed to deny rights to others.

That is indeed the bottom line. If the Church is not a man-made construct, it must conform to God’s design, not the other way 'round.

 

[Rau]

I am indeed suggesting that unusual variations in our species are not inherently design malfunctions. I think to assume otherwise without overwhelming evidence would be hubristic at the very least. To judge any part of God’s creation, any one of his children, are defective, seems irresponsible, especially when we assign additional moral judgements to a persons physical nature. My motivation is to understand the existence of our wonderous universe in light of both observed phenomenon and the Scriptures.

What are the moral implications? That is what I am here to discover. I suspect they are significant, as I’ve intimated in my discussion of complementarism.

Is congenital blindness a bodily defect? Is to be born in a vegetative state a defect? Is to be born without arms a defect?

Is a man who by all accounts is physically normal, potent and capable of fathering a child, but who (for reasons unknown) desires sexual engagement with another man, to be considered to be formed in accordance with a design that provides for exercise of sexual relations with another man? Should that man conclude that engaging in a sexual act, delivering his sperm to another man, is an “as designed” act because his mind desires it? Please walk me through the logic that leads to that conclusion, and which leads you to conclude that that explanation is more compelling than the idea that something is amiss, that the man’s sexual desires have been corrupted. Please explain what “design” would provide for sperm cells to be exchanged between 2 men.

 

[Rau]

Right, but infertile couples, even those absolutely and knowingly incapable of producing offspring, can still have a sacramental marriage so long as they are of opposite sex - without their desire for each other being condemned as disordered. We attach a great deal of moral weight to these issues.

Right. Their relationship is properly ordered. Their procreative potential, which is bound with the marital and unitive fruits of their relationship, is exercised properly. That infertility besets them and makes their relations ineffective in the procreative dimension is an earthly reality.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Right. Their relationship is properly ordered. Their procreative potential, which is bound with the marital and unitive fruits of their relationship, is exercised properly. That infertility besets them and makes their relations ineffective in the procreative dimension is an earthly reality.

So couldn’t homosexual individuals be seen as participating in an earthly reality rather than a disorderly desire? Their procreative potential is no worse than that of infertile individuals.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Plato argued that an army be comprised of same-sex lovers in his Symposium.

Which character in the Symposium argues for an army of homosexuals?

In his Laws, Plato shows nothing but contempt for same-sex sodomites.

 

[JimG]

Right, but infertile couples, even those absolutely and knowingly incapable of producing offspring, can still have a sacramental marriage so long as they are of opposite sex - without their desire for each other being condemned as disordered. We attach a great deal of moral weight to these issues.

The moral weight in this case stems from the natural order. A natural marriage includes the ability to complete the marital act of conjugal relations. Fertility is not the issue; a woman’s fertility is in the optimum case limited to certain times of the month. But the couple in marrying give themselves fully to each other, including giving themselves bodily in conjugal relations. If conjugal relations are permanently impossible, so is marriage. It has nothing to do with fertility.

 

[clem456]

That is indeed the bottom line. If the Church is not a man-made construct, it must conform to God’s design, not the other way 'round.

That is correct.
God designs human nature to bring humans into being. The union of a man and woman is necessary for that. Male and female bodies reflect that complementarity in revealed nature.

Anticipating your objection that God allows people to be born that don’t seemingly fit that complementarity…

that doesn’t change the fact that, to exist, nature provides the union of a man and woman.

Do you agree that human existence requires the union of a man and woman?
If you do, do you believe the Catholic Church invents this concept, or is it God’s design?

 

[Rau]

So couldn’t homosexual individuals be seen as participating in an earthly reality rather than a disorderly desire? Their procreative potential is no worse than that of infertile individuals.

No, because they can “see” the dissonance, the disorder, in the act. Refer to post #108.

 

[clem456]

So couldn’t homosexual individuals be seen as participating in an earthly reality rather than a disorderly desire? Their procreative potential is no worse than that of infertile individuals.

A hammer is designed to drive a nail into a board.
It is physically constructed for that task. It has a flat, hard head, and a handle which allows us to swing it.
Maybe Johnny cannot swing it hard enough to drive a nail. Or maybe the nail is brittle and cannot be driven all the way in. Is the hammer still constructed for that task? Yes. It has a form that is designed for a purpose.

Jimmy on the other hand likes to use a hammer to remove a hangnail from his neighbor’s finger. Comparing the two, you could say that because Johnny is too weak to drive a nail all the way home with the hammer, and Jimmy is not driving a nail home when he hits his neighbor’s finger, that both are using the hammer in a “no worse” way.

Is the hammer used in an ordered way in both cases? No. Is the ordered use of the hammer dependent on the results? No. The hammer has a design and purpose, and the physical form of it is ordered to that purpose. The results are another related issue.

What’s the big deal?
The big deal is we are not really talking about a hammer here, we are talking about the existence of human beings.

Do you think it’s important to respect basic revealed attributes of human beings?
If you see a hungry person, do you think it’s important to satisfy his physical craving for food?
Why? If his flesh has no meaning, why should you? You can wish him well and pray for him and it’s all good. Right?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

That is correct.
God designs human nature to bring humans into being. The union of a man and woman is necessary for that. Male and female bodies reflect that complementarity in revealed nature.

Anticipating your objection that God allows people to be born that don’t seemingly fit that complementarity…

that doesn’t change the fact that, to exist, nature provides the union of a man and woman.

Do you agree that human existence requires the union of a man and woman?
If you do, do you believe the Catholic Church invents this concept, or is it God’s design?

God’s affirmation of male and female is not necessarily a condemnation of gender variance or even same-sex pairing. Niether endagers the survival of the species, obviously.

 

[catholic1seeks]

A hammer is designed to drive a nail into a board.
It is physically constructed for that task. It has a flat, hard head, and a handle which allows us to swing it.
Maybe Johnny cannot swing it hard enough to drive a nail. Or maybe the nail is brittle and cannot be driven all the way in. Is the hammer still constructed for that task? Yes. It has a form that is designed for a purpose.

Jimmy on the other hand likes to use a hammer to remove a hangnail from his neighbor’s finger. Comparing the two, you could say that because Johnny is too weak to drive a nail all the way home with the hammer, and Jimmy is not driving a nail home when he hits his neighbor’s finger, that both are using the hammer in a “no worse” way.

Is the hammer used in an ordered way in both cases? No. Is the ordered use of the hammer dependent on the results? No. The hammer has a design and purpose, and the physical form of it is ordered to that purpose. The results are another related issue.

We can use things, even body parts, in ways that are not part of their obvious and most natural use, and these actions are not deemed immoral. The mouth is designed for consuming proper nutrition, for talking, and for breathing. But we can also use the mouth to eat for pleasure alone, for the mere taste of an unhealthy dessert. We can also use our mouths to kiss a beloved person. Neither of these actions are immoral in themselves, yet they are using a body part in a way that nature has not made it to be used.

 

[Rau]

We can use things, even body parts, in ways that are not part of their obvious and most natural use, and these actions are not deemed immoral. The mouth is designed for consuming proper nutrition, for talking, and for breathing. But we can also use the mouth to eat for pleasure alone, for the mere taste of an unhealthy dessert. We can also use our mouths to kiss a beloved person. Neither of these actions are immoral in themselves, yet they are using a body part in a way that nature has not made it to be used.

In the context of the recent posts on this thread, what does this imply (if anything)?

 

[catholic1seeks]

In the context of the recent posts on this thread, what does this imply (if anything)?

The subject was natural law and how certain things are designed to be used for a certain action. And in the context of this thread, dealing with gender complementarity and sexual issues, especially with the focus on being primarily on procreation in the sex act, I am referring to moral status of sexual acts that aren’t ordered to procreation. For example, homosexual acts.

 

[Rau]

The subject was natural law and how certain things are designed to be used for a certain action. And in the context of this thread, dealing with gender complementarity and sexual issues, especially with the focus on being primarily on procreation in the sex act, I am referring to moral status of sexual acts that aren’t ordered to procreation. For example, homosexual acts.

Are you saying that the reasonableness of using one’s mounth in a multiplicity of ways, some not obvious, leads you to conclude that homosexual acts may be ok, or are you saying that the hammer analogy is a poor one to address the subject at hand?

Is it your view that homosexual acts are a reasonable use of the sexual faculty?