Catholic Sexual Morality

[clem456]

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.

Well of course you can use body parts in ways they are not designed. Isn’t that what we’re talking about?

Why would eating, talking, kissing, breathing, be immoral? None of it is serious moral matter.
Eating til you die would be a different story, and you could make a case for immorality.
Using my mouth to spit on my neighbor…not a good thing.
Using my mouth to give an order to murder someone…not a good thing.

Do you agree that human beings have bodies with unique functions, or not?
For instance, a mouth does not have much to do with fundamental human existence.
Our analogies only go so far, because in the case of male/female complementarity we are talking about very serious matter…the existence of human beings.

Does that mean much to you?

 

[clem456]

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.

Where did I say God condemns anything?..
This is what I said:

Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
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?

I did not say that same sex pairing endangers the survival of the species (although we wouldn’t be here if our parents were same sex.)
Lemme restate the question:

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?/

I’m just curious what you think about such a basic thing. It’s hard to get hold of a productive conversation if we don’t have a sense of commonly observed facts.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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?

More than asserting anything, I guess I am just unsure about the way Natural Moral Law operates in discussing this kind of issue (i.e., talking about a body part “made” or “designed” for a specific action, and then deeming other actions as immoral because they do not reflect the most obvious and natural end that the body part is supposed to be used for.) I brought up the mouth for kissing and eating for pleasure because these are two acts that are not deemed immoral, yet, at the same time, they are not performed with natural ends in view. It just seems arbitrary do use discussions of body parts “made” and “designed” when talking about the morality of actions.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well of course you can use body parts in ways they are not designed. Isn’t that what we’re talking about?

Why would eating, talking, kissing, breathing, be immoral? None of it is serious moral matter.
Eating til you die would be a different story, and you could make a case for immorality.
Using my mouth to spit on my neighbor…not a good thing.
Using my mouth to give an order to murder someone…not a good thing.

Do you agree that human beings have bodies with unique functions, or not?
For instance, a mouth does not have much to do with fundamental human existence.
Our analogies only go so far, because in the case of male/female complementarity we are talking about very serious matter…the existence of human beings.

Does that mean much to you?

Yes, I value the life of every human being.

I do agree our analogies can only go so far. But in your examples, spitting is only immoral when considering the circumstances and intentions. Spitting is not of itself immoral. So this fails, because people argue against homosexuality as itself being immoral. But in your analogy, homosexuality could just as well be said to be wrong in certain circumstances and intention, and not of itself be wrong.

The bringing of humans into the world is a serious matter, but saying homosexual acts are in themselves wrong is a view one brings to the table independently of that. It’s circular reasoning: homosexual acts are wrong because natural law says so, and natural law says so because acts that aren’t ordered to procreation are not natural.

 

[Rau]

…
The bringing of humans into the world is a serious matter, but saying homosexual acts are in themselves wrong is a view one brings to the table independently of that.

Perhaps park the question of morality for a moment. Does post #108 prompt you to at least suspect there is something amiss when 2 men propose to pursue a sexual relationship? That post was a response to the suggestion that homosexual men are, perhaps, a variation on the 2 sexes, and are acting as appropriate to their particular (“designed in”) sexual nature.

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #124
The bringing of humans into the world is a serious matter, but saying homosexual acts are in themselves wrong is a view one brings to the table independently of that. It’s circular reasoning: homosexual acts are wrong because natural law says so, and natural law says so because acts that aren’t ordered to procreation are not natural.

False. As shown it is condemned in Scripture, tradition and the Magisterium, and it is condemned by reason.

The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason.

If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.

Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

Fr Harvey (The Truth About Homosexuality, p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:

1. The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
2. Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.

“That is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural.

 

[clem456]

Yes, I value the life of every human being.

I do agree our analogies can only go so far. But in your examples, spitting is only immoral when considering the circumstances and intentions. Spitting is not of itself immoral. So this fails, because people argue against homosexuality as itself being immoral. But in your analogy, homosexuality could just as well be said to be wrong in certain circumstances and intention, and not of itself be wrong.

The bringing of humans into the world is a serious matter, but saying homosexual acts are in themselves wrong is a view one brings to the table independently of that. It’s circular reasoning: homosexual acts are wrong because natural law says so, and natural law says so because acts that aren’t ordered to procreation are not natural.

Where did I say that homosexual acts are wrong? The foundation of morality is not in what is wrong, morality is based in “the good”. For instance, it is good that you and I are here, it is good that we exist, it is good that a man and woman helped create us. Can we agree that the union of a man and woman is unique in it’s contribution to that good?

Since we are not going to agree on the morality of homosexual acts, can we at least agree on this one question? This is a question which does not require concepts of morality and sin to answer.

Are male and female bodies complementary in a way that same sex bodies are not? Does this complementarity uniquely contribute to that good, or not?

It’s a fairly simple question, and if simple common sense ideas cannot have consensus, how can there be a productive discussion that benefits all people, including gay people?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Where did I say God condemns anything?..
This is what I said:

I did not say that same sex pairing endangers the survival of the species (although we wouldn’t be here if our parents were same sex.)
Lemme restate the question:
Are male and female bodies complementary in a way that same sex bodies are not? Does this complementarity uniquely contribute to that good, or not?

I’m just curious what you think about such a basic thing. It’s hard to get hold of a productive conversation if we don’t have a sense of commonly observed facts.

Yes, male and female bodies are complementary in a way that same-sex bodies are not. And same sex bodies are complementary in ways male and female bodies are not. And this unique body is complementary to that unique body in ways all others are not. And a friendship is complementary in ways other relationships are not.

If complementarianism as currently understood is the basis of so many areas of reason, it must itself be reasonable. Scientific observation shows that sex and gender are complex. Arguably such observations do NOT conflict with Scripture. Can any worldview that seeks to define the human race without acknowledging all our members be the truth?

 

[religioussoup]

Deep breath. Here we go.
The teachings that worry me the most regard:

1. pre-marital sex
2. heteronormative perspective on marriage
3. contraception
4. ordination of women

These are probably my biggest issues with being a Catholic. I don’t really have an opinion on pre-marital sex, but the other 3 are really getting to me.

I advise you to really evaluate the pros and cons of this religion. A lot of people on this site are going to bash me for saying this, but some Catholics don’t believe everything in their religion. WHAT?! I know. Some people take the bible literally word-for-word, but most Catholics find SOMETHING in their religion that bothers them.

Don’t let these things bother you if you’re really serious about the faith. But make sure you consider them as cons when you think about what’s really good and what’s really bad about being a Catholic.

 

[clem456]

Yes, male and female bodies are complementary in a way that same-sex bodies are not. And same sex bodies are complementary in ways male and female bodies are not. And this unique body is complementary to that unique body in ways all others are not. And a friendship is complementary in ways other relationships are not.

If complementarianism as currently understood is the basis of so many areas of reason, it must itself be reasonable. Scientific observation shows that sex and gender are complex. Arguably such observations do NOT conflict with Scripture. Can any worldview that seeks to define the human race without acknowledging all our members be the truth?

Ok, let’s agree for the sake of discussion that it’s very complex. No problem.

You admit that male and female bodies are uniquely complementary, then go on to say that they are only complementary like other bodies are complementary. In the process you have brought the words “unique” and “complementary” to mean almost nothing.

Same sex bodies can only be complementary if the concept is misunderstood. They do not unite together, they do not fully and completely work together like the bodies of a male and female. (I can’t believe we have to have this discussion in the age of enlightenment).

Anticipating your objection of anal and oral sex being a complementary union of two bodies…
Does anal sex bring the whole physical union to it’s complementary conclusion? Complementarity necessitates a mutual and complete giving. You could almost say that complementarity implies a forming of something more than the two bodies, something more than the simple use of the equipment. Anal sex is just using the tools. It is not complementary beyond the coming together of two odd parts. The ejaculation of seed is “wasted”. The seed of a man is designed to unite with the egg of a woman. Our bodies -even the body of a gay person- iare formed and ordered to this. It is undeniable. To deny the obvious reality is insanity.

What is unique about the complementarity of male/female that is not unique to other unions?

The obvious answer is that the bodies of male and female are complementary in a way that is ordered to human existence. No other assertion of complementarity is unique in this way.

Is human existence important to you, or is it just another point to be disputed, like kissing spitting talking anal sex oral sex?
If you say this complementarity is just another thing among many, you may want to consider the implications this has for human flourishing. Things like human dignity, justice, etc…those unique things.

 

[Rau]

Yes, male and female bodies are complementary in a way that same-sex bodies are not. And same sex bodies are complementary in ways male and female bodies are not. And this unique body is complementary to that unique body in ways all others are not. And a friendship is complementary in ways other relationships are not.

If complementarianism as currently understood is the basis of so many areas of reason, it must itself be reasonable. Scientific observation shows that sex and gender are complex. Arguably such observations do NOT conflict with Scripture. Can any worldview that seeks to define the human race without acknowledging all our members be the truth?

C&D - it seems to me that you are somewhat intent on not seeing what is fundamentally and uniquely complementary between man and woman. Yes, 2 male friends may have complementary personalities, and the hands of 2 men may be “complementary” such that “holding hands” seems easy. But can any of this hold a candle to the crushingly obvious and fundamental complementarity that is evident in man+woman? Does the fact that some persons desire acts which do not reflect such complementarity change that one iota? Perhaps you could respond to post #108 and share the elements of another worldview, one that can make sense out of 2 men exchanging their seed?

 

[JimG]

The key to complementarity is that men and women have complementary reproductive systems. There are two sexes: man and woman.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

These are probably my biggest issues with being a Catholic. I don’t really have an opinion on pre-marital sex, but the other 3 are really getting to me.

I advise you to really evaluate the pros and cons of this religion. A lot of people on this site are going to bash me for saying this, but some Catholics don’t believe everything in their religion. WHAT?! I know. Some people take the bible literally word-for-word, but most Catholics find SOMETHING in their religion that bothers them.

Don’t let these things bother you if you’re really serious about the faith. But make sure you consider them as cons when you think about what’s really good and what’s really bad about being a Catholic.

I get what you’re saying, and I thank you. I can’t say I’m not bothered entirely, but I am undeterred. I met with a local Deacon this past Sunday and we had a very productive conversation. I’m confident that I will be able to get intelligent answers from the folks at my local Church.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Perhaps park the question of morality for a moment. Does post #108 prompt you to at least suspect there is something amiss when 2 men propose to pursue a sexual relationship? That post was a response to the suggestion that homosexual men are, perhaps, a variation on the 2 sexes, and are acting as appropriate to their particular (“designed in”) sexual nature.

I felt post 108 took a very reductive view of sexuality. I doubt most people, Catholic or otherwise, feel that sex is merely sperm delivery (in my experience, heterosexual women take a particularly dim view of that being the only result!). Sex involves much more, such as, but probably not limited to, intimacy, trust, bonding, relaxation, communication, love, emotional and physical pleasure, even spiritual ecstasy. To reduce it to the mere exchange of genetic materials might be alright for a conversation about fish, but not, I think, to a conversation about human sexuality.

So if you ask what is the purpose of sperm, then it is most likely for the purpose of procreation - however, I would like to broaden the conversation somewhat to include sexuality as a whole.

 

[Rau]

I felt post 108 took a very reductive view of sexuality. I doubt most people, Catholic or otherwise, feel that sex is merely sperm delivery (in my experience, heterosexual women take a particularly dim view of that being the only result!). Sex involves much more, such as, but probably not limited to, intimacy, trust, bonding, relaxation, communication, love, emotional and physical pleasure, even spiritual ecstasy. To reduce it to the mere exchange of genetic materials might be alright for a conversation about fish, but not, I think, to a conversation about human sexuality.

So if you ask what is the purpose of sperm, then it is most likely for the purpose of procreation - however, I would like to broaden the conversation somewhat to include sexuality as a whole.

I did not reduce sex to sperm delivery, and your suggestion that I did borders on obfuscation. I pointed out that all the fruits of sexual relations - the things you listed and including reproductive potential (sperm delivery) - are bound together. Surely this says something about the intended sexual partner for a man? Do you agree?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

C&D - it seems to me that you are somewhat intent on not seeing what is fundamentally and uniquely complementary between man and woman.

I can see how that would be the impression, but I am not trying to say that. If everyone in the world knew for a fact that there were 3 or even a dozen sexes, that would not in any way change the uniqueness of make-female complementarity. Men and women could still choose to express their love through the continuation of the species, and I think no power on this Earth could make that less important or special. But not all men or all women pair up, and we are ok with that in itself. As a culture we are very much against people who cannot fit certain roles, roles based entirely on physical nature, to the exclusion of all other qualities. And if those physical qualities do not fit neatly either, we decide that they either must not really exist, or they exist because of a natural mistake… Not that our view could stand to broaden. Why is that? Why is it uncomfortable?

 

[Rau]

I can see how that would be the impression, but I am not trying to say that. If everyone in the world knew for a fact that there were 3 or even a dozen sexes, that would not in any way change the uniqueness of make-female complementarity. Men and women could still choose to express their love through the continuation of the species, and I think no power on this Earth could make that less important or special. But not all men or all women pair up, and we are ok with that in itself. As a culture we are very much against people who cannot fit certain roles, roles based entirely on physical nature, to the exclusion of all other qualities. And if those physical qualities do not fit neatly either, we decide that they either must not really exist, or they exist because of a natural mistake… Not that our view could stand to broaden. Why is that? Why is it uncomfortable?

I am not seeing anything uncomfortable in what you say here. I have a friend in his mid-60s who has never married. I have a family friend who is autistic, which materially impedes him from participating in many social roles. Some persons are impotent, which is an impediment to a sexual relationship. Some persons are born in a vegetative state, unable to fulfill any “role”. Some persons find themselves lacking attraction to the opposite sex and experiencing it toward the same sex, therefore these people may feel unable to participate in a marital relationship, but every other kind of role is available to them. Some persons are born with chromosomal abnormalities, having numerous and varied implications for them.

Our view should be generous to all persons, and free of bigotry. Beyond that, to what is it that you think our view might broaden?

 

[clem456]

I can see how that would be the impression, but I am not trying to say that. If everyone in the world knew for a fact that there were 3 or even a dozen sexes, that would not in any way change the uniqueness of make-female complementarity. Men and women could still choose to express their love through the continuation of the species, and I think no power on this Earth could make that less important or special. But not all men or all women pair up, and we are ok with that in itself. As a culture we are very much against people who cannot fit certain roles, roles based entirely on physical nature, to the exclusion of all other qualities. And if those physical qualities do not fit neatly either, we decide that they either must not really exist, or they exist because of a natural mistake… Not that our view could stand to broaden. Why is that? Why is it uncomfortable?

The reason it is uncomfortable is that the complementary of a man and woman is foundational to our existence.

Yet we are asked to accept it’s reduction to “just” another relationship. Your post above does not do that to an extreme. But we must admit that it’s almost impossible to extract this basic observation about the union of a man and woman from most “marriage equality” posters here and in society generally.
This is a basic self evident truth that somehow cannot be admitted by many people. I’m not sure whether that’s due to ignorance, or fear of being “intolerant”, of simply obstinate agenda defense. I dunno.

It’s very uncomfortable, and it should be. It should disturb the hell out of people. It’s un-reasonable, and nothing good can come from un-reason.

This is not about running down single people, gay people, impotent people. It’s about giving human life and dignity it’s full respect. It’s about affirming a good thing, in fact the primary good that human beings are called to…to be.

Before any thing else, humans are called to be.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Before any thing else, humans are called to be.

On that we quite agree.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I did not reduce sex to sperm delivery, and your suggestion that I did borders on obfuscation. I pointed out that all the fruits of sexual relations - the things you listed and including reproductive potential (sperm delivery) - are bound together. Surely this says something about the intended sexual partner for a man? Do you agree?

I agree that it says something, but I do not believe it says everything.