Following Church teaching on homosexuality leads to collateral sin?

[BobObob]

Our bodies are not our own because we have been bought for a price (see 1 Cor 6:12-20, bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-20.htm). Since sexuality affects all aspects of a human person (CCC 2332), for a sexual act to be a loving act, it must be in the context of mutual, total, self-giving. However, only God can totally give us to another person because He purchased all of us (by His death). Having sex with a person that God has not totally given us to would simply be giving your body away, not your total self, and thus be a sin.

Would God give someone totally to another of the same sex? There seems to be no evidence that He would. The Bible does say that a man shall leave his parents and cling to his wife, because God created them male and female (Gen 2:24, Mark 10:6-9).

There are many other ways to see that homosexual acts are wrong, many of which I’m guessing were previously discussed on this thread. Persons who experience same-sex attraction do not sin by experiencing SSA, and “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (CCC 2358) Unfortunately, it seems that many Catholics fall short in this area.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait

Oh dear I wanted to bow out, but as you question me directly…

You say;

In common with most normal thinking people you would, I am quite certain, consider beastality to be most unnatural and a failure to conform to accepted standards of morality. Yet in Sacred Scripture beastality is condemned along with homosexuality in the very self-same chapter of the bible (see Leviticus 18: 22-23). Now both of these hideous acts of depravity are equally vetoed and refered to as “abominations” (vs. 26, 27, 29, 30).

Obviously bestiality is wrong because animals cannot give consent. [You are entitled to call my daughter hideously depraved – you will excuse me if I say of you, who looking upon 20 years of unselfish life enhancing love, has the blind evil prejudice to call it so; such a person is morally blind – shame on you!]
You go on:

Thus in the absence of any authoritative point of reference we are in very deep waters indeed for we have no certain and dependable benchmark with which to appraise sinful behaviours. It all boils down to every man doing that which is right in his own eyes. In other words fallen man’s individual arbitrary opinion, which could, of course, be seriously skewed for all manner of subjective reasons, becomes the only yardstick to measure behaviours.

**This is very poor stuff – simplistic and incorrect. First there is no option but to start from what you call our ‘subjective and biased opinions’ – you had to make your own judgement that the Catholic Church is the source of an objective moral code. To say that everyone ‘does what is right in his own eyes’ and infer that this is a defect is like saying of maths students that they all give in answers ‘that seem to be correct to them’ – what else can they do? [Don’t reply – go to a maths expert because the students would have to make a judgement about who is such an expert.]

In fact most of ethics is so easy that a 5 year old child can get it right. Ethics is about how we live harmoniously together and how our different aspirations can be reconciled. It is about making sure everyone has a fair chance. It is about how society can be ordered so everyone may flourish. Obviously therefore, in normal circumstances it is wrong to kill, injure others, tell lies etc and good to be courageous, generous etc. This is blindingly obvious. By the way your Thomas Aquinas agrees because he says that ethics is within the grasp of the Natural Reason that all normally functioning humans possess.

Ethics is also about celebrating and promoting those things that help us flourish as individuals and as part of society. Hence we rejoice when we hear about a couple celebrating their golden wedding. So many years of love that will have caused great joy for the couple and all who knew them! How absurd and how wicked and how morally blind you are to deny the same to another couple celebrating their 50 years of gay partnership.

To conclude – there are standards that enable us to make moral judgements. They are usually simple to apply, everyone agrees on them, and our Natural Reason ensures that we can be 99% sure they are correct. Of course there are problem situations where the right action is unclear. Obviously these are what we concentrate upon often because we are perplexed but don’t let that blind you to the fact that in most situations knowing what is right is quite clear. [Doing it is sometimes a problem]

So this stuff about being lost in a sea of personal subjective opinions unless we accept Catholic morality is just so much nonsense. Morality as delivered by the Catholic Church, provided you accept it, does enable you to turn your brain off over morality and just accept what the Church says. But it is absurd to portray people outside the church as having no ability to make sound moral judgements.

If ethics interests you so much – try reading some text books on the subject.**
That’s your answer old fellow – I hope that I have nothing more to say.

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

As regards beastality it is not the issue of consent that is our primary problem but the fact that such aberrant acts are indisputably unnatural. Moreover people have a basic ethical intuition that such behaviour is wrong because it is decidedly contrary to nature; man perceives intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human and not an animal.

By parity of reasoning the same applies to the case of homosexual aberrant acts. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus people have the corresponding intuition with respect to homosexuality that they do about beastality, namely, that it is wrong because it is unnatural. As J.R. Porter says, “Homosexuality and beastality bring about uncleaness because they are a violation of nature: men should only have intercourse with women and human beings with human beings” (The Cambridge Bible Commentary, Leviticus, CUP, 1976).

It is not individual private opinion but the inerrant Word of God that declares homosexual liasons unnatural and abhorrent.

Obvously an initial decision must be made to accept the authority and claims of the Church by the prospective convert, how could it be otherwise? However, once the evidence for the divine origin of the Church has been deemed to be valid and submitted to, what further need is there to question the veracity of its teaching on faith and morals?

Your analogy of maths students actually argues more in favour of my position than your own, since whatever varied answers the students may submit there is only one correct solution to the sums. Likewise, men outside of the Church are using their own unaided reasoning to arrive at divers solutions to weighty moral issues etc., when there is in fact only one correct answer so to speak, vis-a-vis, the authoritative teaching of the magisterium. Until they submit to this they are searching blindingly and uncertainly and are likely to be influenced by all manner of subjective considerations, as you plainly are in the case of your daughter. This is why a totally dependable and trustworthy criterion of righteousnes is absolutely indispensable if men are not to embrace false opinions that are at variance with God’s law.

The sort of utopian world that you describe is oversimplified in that it conceals the truth that man is a fallen being and has a continual propensity to sin. Alas, people do not live ‘harmoniously together’ and man’s inhumanity to man is all too much in evidence everytime we pick up our daily newspaper or switch on the TV news. Owing to the effects of the Fall man will always be thwarted in his attempts to create peace on earth and a society free from suffering. Sorry old chap but men are just not prepared to play by the rules of their Creator and are in daily revolt against Him - the thoughts of men’s hearts are only evil continually (Genesis 6: 5).

Reason, when it is right, is good enough as far as it goes. However, it is very liable to error, and when right, does not go anywhere near far enough. No, we need the additional truth revealed by God and taught us by His infallible Church.

Finally, your very ideas of what is good and moral are derived from the general Christian culture of the civilisation in which you live. Renan admitted that to abolish Christianity, yet to wish to retain its ethics, is merely to inhale a perfume from an empty bottle. Men cannot live on perfumes; and even if they could, the emptiness of the bottle will soon mean the end of the perfume. Again if the Christian religion is true, as it is, then it is necessary for goodness and morality. For its very acceptance will be part of the morality, involving the discharge of our debt to God. Religion is as necessary to good morals as ‘Satnav’ is necessary to good road navigation.

The rejection by the Church of homosexual deviant acts is not an arbitrary proscription. It is, like other moral imperatives. rooted in natural law - the design that God has built into human nature.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[antunesaa]

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has been abusing people.
For example, is has been estimated that, at least 500.000 women, were tortured and then
burned to death during the Inquisition.
Joan of Arc was burned to death.
If Galileo had not caved, he would have likely gotten the same treatment.
It wasn’t till fairly recently that Blacks were able to become priests.
Even today women are still second class in the Church.
The Church has It’s collective head in It’s nether region were ANYTHING about
sex is concerned.
Etc., etc.

Why look to an organization with that kind of history for guidance ?

The number is 5,000,000,000 women, isn’t it? What an egregious ignorance you display.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

Thanks for your courteous reply which deserves a response.

These discussions can expand in an unwieldy fashion so let’s concentrate on one topic only.

Your church claims that Natural Law ethics implies that gay sex is wrong and that this can be made evident to a person outside the Faith via their faculty of Reason. Now this is the issue I would like to discuss.

So that rules out consideration of the infallibility of your Church or of the Bible because the reasoning has to persuade the non-believer. Nor is it a consideration to say that, if we do not accept Natural Law Ethics, the alternatives are not palatable. The alternatives might be unfortunate but that has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the approach we are investigating.

Some Protestants think that original sin has corrupted our Reason so Faith is the only way to go. Fortunately your Church, although it thinks original sin has an effect, nevertheless thinks that the non-believer’s Reason can be brought to see the truth of Natural Law Ethics.

Natural Law Ethics says that human beings natural value the end of reproduction – that is why they have sex organs – and so it is wrong to use these organs in a way that frustrates their reproductive purpose. Let me mention three problems:

1] The move is made from ‘this frustrates the reproductive purpose…’ to ‘this is wrong’. However this vital move in the argument needs a [non-theological] justification and I do not see it. It is tempting to think that ‘unnatural’ → ‘wrong’ is obvious because the word ‘unnatural’ has a negative emotional charge but it is a charge that needs a justification here.
2] Consider a couple who are such that refraining from using artificial contraception will produce great unhappiness [You fill in the details]. So they have a choice:
A] Use artificial contraception [BAD] and live a happy life [GOOD] or
B] Refrain from using artificial contraception [GOOD] and living an unhappy life [BAD]
Natural Law Ethics, in effect says, that its edicts must ‘trump’ all other considerations. But why? The normal view of this situation is to say that we have a choice between two evils and, probably A] is the lesser.
3] A gay couple use their sex organs in a way that frustrates their purpose. A celibate person frustrates the purpose of his sex organs by not using them at all. The Church teaches that the first is wrong but the second is acceptable. But this seems arbitrary. If I gave you a spade for the purpose of digging in your garden, I would be annoyed to hear you used it as a shovel but I would be equally annoyed if you did not use it at all. Both courses frustrate the purpose of the organ/implement so both ought to be culpable.

However you have persistently ignored the main point I am trying to make here. Let me use a very silly example but with a serious purpose. Suppose hypothetically and absurdly that Natural Law Ethics decreed that poppies were blue – what would you say? Obviously that in this case Natural Law Ethics were mistaken somehow because you could not deny the evidence of your own eyes.

OK – here in front of your eyes is a gay couple who display 20 years of love, identical in all respects to that of a straight couple, whose relationship has loads of positive qualities etc etc. Now Natural Law Ethics says, absurdly, that this relationship is ‘hideously depraved’. Obviously you have to conclude, along with an increasing band of people inside and outside the church, that Natural Law Ethics must be mistaken here. To deny love etc that is in front of your eyes is to ‘hideously depraved’ yourself!

With good wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Thankyou once again for your response to my posting.

Firstly, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘unnatural’ as “contrary to nature; abnormal”, thus it would be perfectly reasonable to contend that a negative connotation can hardly be avoided. Now homosexuality and beastality would surely fall under this definition inasmuch as they are both abnormal and aberrant forms of behaviour.

For the Christian it is quite true that homosexuality is regarded as not only unnatural but morally wrong also because it is contrary to God’s design for human sexuality. When we look back to what we are told about the beginnings of human sexuality in the Book of Genesis, we find that carnal copulation was intended to be the seal on a faithful, loving, exclusive heterosexual relationship. As God created man and woman together in His own image, ‘becoming one flesh’ in heterosexual intercourse is not merely a union but a reunion - now a homosexual relationship is in effect a repudiation of that awesome Divine arrangement. Indeed this is the very reason why it is so wicked to seek to legitimize and normalize homosexual acts of depravity or to argue that homosexual liasons are acceptable alternative variants.

Secondly, your parallel with celibacy and contraception simply does not hold up under scrutiny. Those who undertake the duties of the married state are forbidden by the Church to us artificial means of birth-prevention. However, celibates are called to a different state altogether and obvously have neither the duties nor the rights of the married life. There is a vast difference between preventing children by setting God’s natural laws in opposition yet frustrating their effects, and simply omitting to have children. After all no man is obliged to set the natural productive laws in operation. Likewise, the obligation to pay bills is not violated by the man who has no bills. Human beings may omit those actions which God intends to result in life, but if they exercise them and then prevent human life then clearly they violate God’s moral law.

Thirdly, Laurie, I have repeatedly stated that whilst I recoginze the love quality of your daughter’s liason and her happiness, this cannot be made the criterion of truth. All of our behaviours must be measured against the yardstick of God’s moral law; all Christians, at least if they are orthodox, are shut into this outlook; “Here they stand, they can do no other”, to quote the words of Martin Luther, said in an entirely different context. Any love quality in homosexual liasons is insufficient to justify them and render them acceptable. As a matter of fact they are incompatible with true love because they are incompaitible with God’s law. As in the case of equity and common law, where they conflict equity must prevail; likewise, where man’s happiness and God’s law conflict then God’s law must also prevail, or to use your word ‘trump’ man’s happiness.

Forgive me if I have said this previously but it bears repetition, love is concerned for the highest welfare of the beloved and our highest human welfare is found in obedience to God’s law and purpose, not in revolt against them.

That’s all for now old chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Cherry5]

Dear Laurie,

The sort of utopian world that you describe is oversimplified in that it conceals the truth that man is a fallen being and has a continual propensity to sin. Alas, people do not live ‘harmoniously together’ and man’s inhumanity to man is all too much in evidence everytime we pick up our daily newspaper or switch on the TV news. Owing to the effects of the Fall man will always be thwarted in his attempts to create peace on earth and a society free from suffering. Sorry old chap but men are just not prepared to play by the rules of their Creator and are in daily revolt against Him - the thoughts of men’s hearts are only evil continually (Genesis 6: 5).

Portrait

My experience of mankind is different from yours, I believe generally man seeks to be good not evil. The examples of evil you have referenced are the exceptions rather than the rule which is why they make the news. I do not believe that God made man’s hearts “evil” if that were so nothing good could ever come out of this world. I realize that the references are accurate, however I disagree with the context you are using it in. The image you paint of our loving Father is really sad. We are His creation and hence MUST be intrinsically good.

I pray that you experience the love of our Father and understand His Heart.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,
Thanks again for the reply
You remark:
Firstly, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘unnatural’ as “contrary to nature; abnormal”, thus it would be perfectly reasonable to contend that a negative connotation can hardly be avoided

It is perfectly true that such words do usually have a negative connotation. The question though, in a particular case of ‘abnormal or unnatural behaviour, should they? In some sense being faithful to my wife is ‘unnatural’ but it is also right and killing my rival in love is ‘natural’ but obviously wrong. So just because an act is unnatural in the sense of being contrary to natural law ethics does not entail it is wrong – we need the missing step in the argument to take us from, ‘this act frustrates the reproductive act and so is unnatural as defined by Natural Law’, to ‘this act is wrong’.

Now please remember what I am discussing.

**Your church claims that Natural Law ethics implies that gay sex is wrong and that this can be made evident to a person outside the Faith via their faculty of Reason. Now this is the issue I would like to discuss.

So that rules out consideration of the infallibility of your Church or of the Bible because the reasoning has to persuade the non-believer. Nor is it a consideration to say that, if we do not accept Natural Law Ethics, the alternatives are not palatable. The alternatives might be unfortunate but that has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the approach we are investigating.**

So your references to God’s plan, Genesis etc are out of order. Reasons acceptable to a non-believer are what is needed please. Most of your answer does not fit the bill. Remember it is your Church that says a well-disposed unbeliever can be brought to see the truth behind Natural Law Ethics.

Re my daughter; you say:
I have repeatedly stated that whilst I recognize the love quality of your daughter’s liason and her happiness…

Well that is fine and interesting. You agree her love is everything I say it is BUT nevertheless you have to condemn it because you think that your God of Love does. There is no logical contradiction here, there is however a contradiction [1] also a profound moral blindness [2] and a practice that does involve a contradiction.
[1] By the ordinary meaning of the words ‘good’, ‘fulfilling’, ‘wonderful’ etc my daughters 20 year relationship with partner is so. You have agreed. Add in the fact that it harms nobody and that by any normal ethical viewpoint this entails her situation is morally good and we have a contradiction with the everyday meanings of the concepts involved.
[2] The blindness is to allow some reasoning to produce in you a belief to reject a wonderful love which you admit you see. [It is as though you said, “I know the rose is red because I see it but it cannot be because God says it is not – remember God is the standard when it comes to colour.”]
[3] My brother in law is in exactly your position re my daughter because he is an Evangelical Pastor. However he treats her and her partner in exactly the same kindly manner as he treats the straight couples in the family. He invites her to family dos, sends Christmas presents etc. He does this because, like you, he is a nice guy and realises that in an everyday sense their gay relationship is on a par with the straight ones. Yet, like you, he is committed to seeing the relationship as ‘hideously perverted’. Now if my daughter was into bestiality, or was a thief or child molester, he would most certainly not treat her the same as everyone else – he would shun her until she reformed! Quite right too. So he is in a very odd position, he treats her in exactly the same manner as he treats everyone elsel but he nevertheless thinks her very evil. This is a practical contradiction.

Hope to hear from you –but answering my question non-theologically.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[agapewolf]

First, please do not call it SSA, it’s an obnoxious euphemism. To answer your question, I feel I have to lie when a friend or family member blatantly asks, “are you homosexual?” Any response other than to lie and say “no” would logically indicate that I was. Friends and family members knowing would cause significant problems in my relationships with them, and as a homosexual living chastely in accord with Church teaching, they are all I have.

Such an admission could in fact jeopardize my job and certainly my ministry work. For my job, I work in a very liberal industry (the literary industry) and have many liberal friends. Once I admit that I am a homosexual who lives chastely, I become instantly slathered with labels such as “repressed” and “self-loathing.” My gay friends would view me as a traitor. Not that I mind the labels so much, but I do mind the loss of friendships with people I deeply care about, especially when friendships are the only meaningful relationships I am allowed. Beyond the friendships, I love my job. I enjoy what I do.

As for ministry, Catholic parents do not want their children to be supervised by a known homosexual, whether he is chaste or not. There is such a vicious stigma attached to homosexuality, that only the most intelligent and understanding of people would be able to see past it, and those people are few among conservative Catholic parents.

Actually, “homosexual” is the obnoxious euphamism. There is no such thing, because “homo” means “same” and “sexual” means "difference. The term was invented only in the last century or so. you aren’t doing yourself any favors by accepting that its a title and its “how you are”. We are made male and female. This secular acceptance of a disorder as a “good” is a travesty.

Those that suffer from same sex attraction (and that is indeed what it is…a disorder, and suffering) are suffering like others who perhaps have other disorders. They are not equivalent in essence or amount of suffering, but its a disorder none the less. If we are to heal our wounds in the world, it is important to redeem the language. This is the most charitable way of terming it, it is not a bad euphamism, but an actual accurate term.

Seek out tobhealing.com/

 

[Portrait]

My experience of mankind is different from yours, I believe generally man seeks to be good not evil. The examples of evil you have referenced are the exceptions rather than the rule which is why they make the news. I do not believe that God made man’s hearts “evil” if that were so nothing good could ever come out of this world. I realize that the references are accurate, however I disagree with the context you are using it in. The image you paint of our loving Father is really sad. We are His creation and hence MUST be intrinsically good.

I pray that you experience the love of our Father and understand His Heart.

Dear Cherry5,

Thankyou most kindly for your comments upon my post.

May I say by way of reply that your remarks are, if I have understood you correctly, at variance with both Sacred Scripture and the universal experience of mankind.

Firstly, you state that “man generally seeks to be good not evil”. On the contrary, Passages such as Gen. 8: 21 and Ps. 51: 5 indicate that from the moment of conception man becomes subject to a perisistent propensity to sin and to revolt against the divine will. Thus we normally speak of ‘fallen’ or "wounded’ human nature as a consequence of Original Sin. This is not to say that man is incapable of doing any meritorious works, since human nature in its natural state can, and indeed does, attain to natural goods and virtues. Man’s depravity is then not total (Calvinism) but relative only, that is to say by comparison with its original condition.

Original Sin affords the only satisfying explanation of the permanent imperfections and evils of this world and common human experience. It is only by accepting the revealed doctrine of Original Sin that man can fully appreciate why the world is marred by so much wickedness and unhapiness. Owing to the frustration of God’s purpose by the sin of Adam man is burdened with a fallen human nature. Within himself he continually feels the strong pull of evil passions and must “in this vale of tears” bear with much sorrow and suffering. Thus man is not “intrinsically good” but a fallen sinner with an inclination towards evil and death.

Secondly, of course “God did not make men’s heart’s evil”, man made his own heart evil by his original disobedience and rebellion and consequently, as our federal head, brought sin upon the entire race (see Rom. 5: 12,18-19).

Thirdly, the daily examples of man’s inhumanity to man are anything but “exceptions rather than the rule”, if only that were so. What one hears about in the news media is really only the tip of the iceberg, especially when considered from a global perspective. Moreover, this is in full accord with St. Paul’s diagnoses of the condition of mankind as one of universal apostasy and corruption (see Rom. 3: 12-18). Alas, men are rotten to the core (cf. Ps. 14: 3). Indeed the stark facts of imperfection, sin, and evil, led G.K. Chesterton to say, “Certain new theologians dispute Original Sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see on the street” (Orthodoxy, 1908, ch. 2). Sound words indeed!, Clearly, if there had been no story of the Fall in Sacred Scripture we should have been compelled to invent something of the kind to account for human history.

Cherry5, our heavenly Father is loving, that is why He sent His Son to redeem and restore fallen man (St. John 3: 16), but He is also holy and “of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look upon wrong” (Hab. 1: 13). In fact St. Paul sternly remarks that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness supress the truth” (Rom. 1: 18). Now would any orthodox Catholic accuse St. Paul of portraying a very “sad” image of God? Incontrovertibly, our loving God cannot be indifferent to sin, homosexual sin or any other sin for that matter. It continually evokes His holy abhorrence and is a direct assault upon His majesty.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Greetings once again dear friend and thankyou for your reply.

Yes the words “unnatural and abnormal” surely should have a negative connotation when used in the context of a violation of God’s moral law. Indeed I do not see how, quite frankly, they can have anything but a negative import given the fact that such violation is a direct assault upon God’s majesty and holiness.

Being faithful to your spouse is both natural and normal since by doing this you are being obedient to the commandment that forbids adultery. Murdering a contender for your wife’s affections would be unnatural in the sense that it would involve you in breaking the commandment that forbids murder. Obedience to the Commandments is the natural course of action for man because that is to love God and to bring one’s life into harmony with His will. The problem is that it is difficult for man to obey God’s laws, as I have been explaining to Cherry5 above, because of man’s inclination to evil on account of inborn sinfulness.

Something that is contrary to natural law will always be “wrong” if it involves an infraction of the moral law of God. For the Christian the moral law of God will always be the “missing step” of which you speak for that is the only sure and certain benchmark with which to appraise man’s conduct.

Laurie, a man should not be ruled by his own reasoning when it is a question of the religion revealed by God. To decide what one will believe or not believe for oneself is faith in one’s own ability, but not faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. Christian faith believes what Christ taught and because Christ taught it, without reference to one’s own likes or dislikes.
Now if Christ has done the thinking for you on any given subject, all you are required to do is to accept His teaching. How will you find it? He has left His authorized Church. Use your reason by all means to discern this Church, and then be reasonably taught by it. Use your reasoning faculty wisely by examining the claims of the Church from reliable authoritative sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church for example. You owe this to yourself at least before dismissing the Church’s teaching on faith and morals as arrant nonsense or outmoded supersition.

Your brother in law is quite right in his rejection of your daughter’s liason because his beliefs regarding it are informed by the revealed will of God in Sacred Scripture. This is my position also save for the additional fact that I accept the Catholic Church’s veto upon such sinful unions. Like me “here he stands, he can do no other”. However, this does not ipso facto mean that one must be unkind or discourteous towards those who engage in such sinful conduct. To cite the old adage, “we must love the sinner but hate the sin”. Moreover, homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC, para. 2358). Thus Christians who uphold the Church’s and bible’s condemnation of homosexual behaviour with great relish, but without a glimmer of love for homosexual people, earn Mark Twain’s caustic description of being ‘good people in the worst sense of the word’. So those who accept their Church’s proscription on homosexual behaviour must go out of their way to express genuine love for homosexual people. Respecting the dignity of every man, however, does not entail giving approval to any and all behaviour. The Church considers any and *all *sexual activity outside of wedlock as sinful and immoral, e.g., auto-eroticism, fornication, adultery, pornography, and artificial birth-prevention are all sinful. This applies equally to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

That’s all. Goodbye for now old boy.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

Thanks but you are not playing the game.

**Your church says that Natural Law Ethics can be made persuasive to a non-believer via his Natural Reason. And I have asked you to back up this claim. **

Therefore a reply full of references to God and the Church is quite irrelevant. Of course you do not have to play this game if you do not want to, if so I’ll say ‘thank you and goodbye’ however if you would like to defend your churches claim above then I’ll be glad to hear from you again.

I hope I will.

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Addendum

And ,yet again, you ignore my point that as your reasoning leads you to deny what is in front of your eyes, that shows the reasoning must be flawed.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

Thanks but you are not playing the game.

**Your church says that Natural Law Ethics can be made persuasive to a non-believer via his Natural Reason. And I have asked you to back up this claim. **

Therefore a reply full of references to God and the Church is quite irrelevant. Of course you do not have to play this game if you do not want to, if so I’ll say ‘thank you and goodbye’ however if you would like to defend your churches claim above then I’ll be glad to hear from you again.

I hope I will.

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and sorry that you found the content of my posting unsatisfactory and inadequate. However, I have already addressed this issue in our previous debate on the other thread, nevertheless I will reprise what I said then again and provide some additional material from an authoritative source, namely The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

People have a basic ethical intuituition that certain behaviour’s are wrong because they are unnatural (have dealt with the negative import of this word on this thread). Man perceives instinctively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

By parity of resoning this applies to the case of homosexual deviant acts. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman and, conversely, the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus men have the correspondinng intuition concerning homosexuality that they do regarding beasteality - that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Now you will no doubt respond by saying that there are many people nowadays who do not embrace the position that homosexuality is on a par with beastality and that it is therefore morally wrong and unnatural. By way of reply I would respond by saying that since men are fallen beings they will, for all manner of subjective reasons etc., supress or stifle this self-evident truth. For though sin has not utterly vitiated man’s religious capacities, it has turned them away from the living God, so that he now prefers his own sinful will to that of God’s.

Then there is the problem of man’s unsound and unhealthy conscience. A man’s conscience is not always necessarily a true conscience. A man can clearly warp his conscience and form a wrong judgment in literature, the sciences, economics, busness or politics. Likewise, his thinking on moral issues can be skewed and he can thus form a wrong judgment as to what is correct moral conduct or evil moral conduct. A man’s conscience is only right when it is in harmony with God’s law; if it is not consonant with God’s law it will inevitably be an erroneous conscience. We all know by experience that men have frequently done evil under the impression that they were right. So individual conscience can be erroneous, either through lack of knowledge or rebellious self-will. For example, God says “You shall not commit adultery”, yet their are, alas, myriads of people who mock and say that they cannot conscientiously see anything untoward in adultery if two people are so happy together. Now if these people are being truthful, and lets give them the benefit of the doubt, then they have plainly cauterized consciences. God’s law is the benchmark of right and wrong just as the sun is the standard of time; a conscience is right if it is in conformity with God’s law, just as your watch is right if it is in harmony with the sun.

The following paragraphs are extracted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church from a section entitled, “The Natural Moral Law”. Sorry but it is just to long to quote in full but I think the Catechism is available on line.

"The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offence…To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one abrogate it entirely" (Para. 1956).

"The natural law is *immutable * and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. **Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it **cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and socities:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by** that law that is written in the human **heart, the law that iniquity itseelf does not efface" (Para. 1958)

“The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, **provides the solid foundation on which man **can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building human community…” (Para. 1959, All emphases mine).

That’s all for now dear friend. Hope that went at least some way in defending the Church’s position.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

Thanks very much.

Let me see if I understand the steps in your argument correctly before I reply;

I asked you how you went from the statement, ‘Such and such is unnatural’ to the conclusion, **‘It is wrong’ **without calling God or the Church to your aid. Your reply is that we have a moral intuition that ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’. Conscience tells us in other words

To answer an objection that lots of people do not have this intuition you respond that their consciences are morally defective.

Is this basically what you are saying? If it is I’ll reply next post – if not please correct it.

Thanks

Laurie

PS We cannot however use ‘harmony with God’s moral law’ as our way of distinguishing between a sound and a defective conscience because, remember, we are trying to convince a non-believer.

 

[Petergee]

But you cannot compare living chastely as a heterosexual to living chastely as a homosexual. For you, it is a temporal situation, you are celibate until you get married, then you must live chastely, but may have sex and share your life with your husband. For me, I must be celibate for the rest of my life, may not have a husband or partner to share my life with.

Chastity is something we are all called to every day, every moment. Certainly sexual temptations are things of the day and the moment! I assure you that hoping, or even knowing, that one will have sexual intercourse in a year, a month or even a day, is no defence against the temptation to fornicate NOW! Especially when many marry in middle age and sexual drive is at its peak in early adulthood. Many people besides those with SSA forgo sexual activity for life or for very long periods for a whole range of reasons beyond their control - they don’t want marriage/kids, they never get to meet Mr/Miss Right, their husband/wife becomes very ill or disabled for life, or deserts them etc. I’m trying to be sympathetic here but you do sound rather self-indulgent and self-pitying.

 

[antonabe]

The posts in his thread brings to my mind the words of Isaiah as appearing in Matthew
“You will hear my words ,but you will not understand,
You will see what I do but you will not perceive its meaning
For the hearts of these people are hardened
and their ears cannot hear and they have closed their eyes, so that their eyes do not see and their ears cannot hear
and their hearts cannot understand
and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them”

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

Thanks very much.

Let me see if I understand the steps in your argument correctly before I reply;

I asked you how you went from the statement, ‘Such and such is unnatural’ to the conclusion, **‘It is wrong’ **without calling God or the Church to your aid. Your reply is that we have a moral intuition that ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’. Conscience tells us in other words

To answer an objection that lots of people do not have this intuition you respond that their consciences are morally defective.

Is this basically what you are saying? If it is I’ll reply next post – if not please correct it.

Thanks

Laurie

PS We cannot however use ‘harmony with God’s moral law’ as our way of distinguishing between a sound and a defective conscience because, remember, we are trying to convince a non-believer.

Dear Laurie,

Re. the above, yes you have understood me correctly, in addition to the fact that some men supress and stifle what they know in their innermost being to be true. - look very forward to your reply shortly.

However, I shall probably not be able to reply until tommorow afternoon (Friday), so please do not think I am ignoring you old chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks Portrait,

You have a moral intuition that if something is unnatural it is also wrong. You are an honest person so I’ll assume you are telling me the truth and you are also stable in your judgement so I’ll assume too that you have your intution accurately identified. But I have an intuition that faithful gay sex is fine because expresses love. I assume that you think I am sincere and have tried to be honest about what I intuit.

The problem is this. How do we decide between contradictory intuitions? Of course if for other reasons we know you are correct then you would have to explain my faulty intuition away somehow. [Perhaps Orginal sin corrupts my conscience] Similarly if it is my intuition that is correct we would need to explain away your mistake. [Original sin would do for that too - perhaps the devil is blinding you to love].

So I am referring the problem back to you. Without bringing God or the Bible or the Church into help you, how can you tell whose conscience is delivering the truth? Obviously you need a criterion. What is it to be?

Summary so far;

YOU - It is unnatural SO it is wrong.
ME - But how do you make this deduction? Why does ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’?
YOU - My moral intuition or conscience tells me this is so.
ME - But my moral intuition or conscience tells me the opposite re gay sex.So how do we decide whose conscience is correct here?
YOU - ???
I wait your response with interest!

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and sorry for the delay with my response, thankyou kindly for your patience old chap.

Let me begin on a positive note by saying that your sincerity is not in question and I understand that it is your conviction, based very much in your case on empirical observation, that homosexual liasons are an expression of genuine love.

As my citations from the Church Catechism demonstrate (see post 114), whilst the Church does make its appeal to the natural moral law, established by reason, it does not and indeed cannot rest its case there. However, the very fact that all men do have a conscience is, per se, cogent evidence of our indestructable moral nature, and a sure and certain proof that our benevolent God bears witness to Himself in our hearts. Moreover, the existence of conscience is surely irrefragible evidence for the existence of God, for how is it that man has this innate faculty to distinguish right from wrong in the first place and which also passes judgment upon his conduct? Although it is true that man’s conscience has been blurred by sin it has not been utterly extinguished and the law of God remains indelibly written upon his heart. Laurie, can I kindly ask that you give this whole matter of our conscience and its weighty significance your earnest deliberation. Look, every man knows, in his innermost being, that he is obligated to be and do good and this absolute obligation could only come from God; conscience is truly the voice of God within the soul.

You ask how one can decide between two “contradictory intuitions”. Actually, I would re-phrase that by asking how does one decide between two radically defective consciences. Put that way we see the absolute necessity and indispensability of an authorititative arbiter when it comes to deciding upon crucial moral issues over which there may be controversy. The Catholic would contend that conscience alone cannot be the final court of appeal as a guide to moral conduct since that, alas, has been rendered radically defective by Original Sin and is hence no safe guide. The last court of appeal, as regards right and wrong behaviour, must necessarily always be the divine law of God, as taught by Sacred Scripture and interpreted by the Church, which because it is God’s law is not subject to erroneous judgment (unlike us) and will therefore have binding authority over all men. This is probaby not the answer that you wished to hear but the Christian, one might say, is by default shut in to it. There is really no alternative, apart from placing faith in individual judgment, and that just leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, where one man’s convictions are no more or less authoritative than another man’s. With Pontius Pilate one will be impatiently asking, “What is truth?”.

However, once the authority of conscience has been granted (and it is by most men), then God’s existence becomes an ineluctable conclusion. Thus it seems wholly unreasonable and illogical to acknowledge conscience and its authority and then refuse to believe in the God who gave man this conscience, as I have argued above. Man has the very will of God speaking, however obscurely and whisperingly, however poorly heard, acknowledged and heeded, in the depths of his soul. Why, if only he would just realize this and acknowledge it.

True, men may claim that their consciences do not convict them as to the immorality or unnaturalness of homosexual deviant acts. The question remains, however, whether a man’s moral compass has been so distorted that he is no longer able to form a correct judgment in the matter. Moreover, it is also quite conceivable that he may be repressing or stifling the truth which he does know, deep within him, regarding the immorality of homosexuality, for all manner of personal reasons (e.g. fear of public disapproval or being branded ‘homophobic’, being declared persona non grata by relatives, friends or work colleagues or simply because such a ‘bigoted’ viewpoint does not sit comfortably with a man’s socially liberal world-view). All of these factors can exert an exceedingly powerful influence in a man’s life, perhaps much more than he would ever be prepared to admit.

Now since we do not always hear the voice of conscience aright, the first obligation a man has is to to form his conscience by diligently seeking the truth (he owes this to himself anyway), especially the truth about whether God has revealed to mankind clear moral maps (Sacred Scripture and the Church). If this is so then whenever our conscience seems to tells us to disobey those maps, as in the case of homosexual liasons, it is not functioning properly and is therefore not to be trusted.

In the final analysis only an infallible and authoritative church can provide the necessary criterion of truth and righteousness by which to evaluate moral conduct. Thus it is of crucial importance that earnest men undertake extensive study to discover if the claims of the Catholic Church can be validated, both historically and theologically. If they can be shown to be true (and they most certainly can), then a man has no option but to submit himself to the Church that Jesus Christ established and become a Catholic.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait