Following Church teaching on homosexuality leads to collateral sin?

[Laurie_Gibson]

Oh dear old mate - you run away from the point again.

I thought we had agreed that, in theory, natural law reasoning could be made plain to an unbeliever? Now natural law reasoning says that ‘unnatural’ = ’ wrong’ and I asked you for the reasoning that should get a non-believer to agree. You then produce God to do the job! How would this work for a non-believer?

[We agreed also that sin might lead him to reject the reasoning - BUT SO FAR YOU HAVE PRODUCED NONE TO CLOSE THE GAP, FOR ME TO ACCEPT OR REJECT]

So please - try again, Give me ONE reason why ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’ without bringing God into the mattter. I am beginning to think that you cannot - in which case do have the honesty to say and we can move on to other problems I have with Natural Law Morality which we can look at one at a time - then you wanted to talk about conscience?

I also produced some counter-examples.Let us stick with one. Hair evolved for the purpose of keeping the head warm. If I have a No 0 haircut I frustrate that purpose. By Natural Law reasoning then I have sinned. You cannot say ‘oh but it is only a little one’. It is, by your reasoning a sin - the haircut directly frustrates the purpose of my having hair. A sin is a sin is a sin.

Of course it is not REALLY a sin of any size whatsoever. That means that natural law reasoning may be mistaken.

With good wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Oh dear old mate - you run away from the point again.

I thought we had agreed that, in theory, natural law reasoning could be made plain to an unbeliever? Now natural law reasoning says that ‘unnatural’ = ’ wrong’ and I asked you for the reasoning that should get a non-believer to agree. You then produce God to do the job! How would this work for a non-believer?

[We agreed also that sin might lead him to reject the reasoning - BUT SO FAR YOU HAVE PRODUCED NONE TO CLOSE THE GAP, FOR ME TO ACCEPT OR REJECT]

So please - try again, Give me ONE reason why ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’ without bringing God into the mattter. I am beginning to think that you cannot - in which case do have the honesty to say and we can move on to other problems I have with Natural Law Morality which we can look at one at a time - then you wanted to talk about conscience?

I also produced some counter-examples.Let us stick with one. Hair evolved for the purpose of keeping the head warm. If I have a No 0 haircut I frustrate that purpose. By Natural Law reasoning then I have sinned. You cannot say ‘oh but it is only a little one’. It is, by your reasoning a sin - the haircut directly frustrates the purpose of my having hair. A sin is a sin is a sin.

Of course it is not REALLY a sin of any size whatsoever. That means that natural law reasoning may be mistaken.

With good wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and here is my post as promised.

In my previous postings I have already adduced reasons as to why homosexuality is is at variance with natural law. Thus you will recollect that I stated that purely from a biological standpoint human beings of the same gender were not designed for intimate ‘face to face’ coitius, physically or genetically. Biology dictates that the vagina is intended to accommodate the penis. Moreover, the vagina has a natural lubrication and multiple layers of protective skin cells in a manner in which the anus does not. Thus it can be seen that homosexuality in this respect alone is manifestly unnatural. Furthermore, I discussed the* teleology of the reproductive organs*, which I argued could be quite easily discerned. Thus I explained that the physical design of each organ, as well as the process of reproduction, is obviously adapted to the function of pro-creation. Now these examples argue the case against homosexual aberrant acts soley on the basis of natural law reasoning without recourse to religion. Thus, I did endeavour to make plain to you from natural law that homosexual deviancy was unnatural and hence wrong. The issue surely has more to do with the fact that my examples were not, in your opinion, cogent enough to impress you and accordingly failed to convince, but that is an entirely different matter altogether. It may be that I did not present my case as effectively as I could have done. If that is the case then I apologise and the fault lies, at least to some degree, with my ineffectual debating skills. On the other hand you yourself are anything but an impartial or neutral party and have very good reasons for not wishing to be convinced by my arguments, in which case it is your own preconceived opinions which are to blame.

As far as I am aware from my research on this topic, there are not any further natural law arguments, save perhaps for the health issues, that could be referenced as evidence against homosexual aberrant acts, but I may be wrong. If there are other compelling arguments then perhaps someone can bring them to our notice. The reproductive argument is most certainly employed by Catholic apologists when arguing against homosexuality purely on the basis of natural law.

Laurie, I really do not believe that someone is going to produce some greatly impressive natural law argument that is going to bowl you over and cause you to have a fundamental change of heart. The reason I feel so certain about this is that you have very good reasons for not wanting to be convinced; such a radical conversion of your viewpoint could prove very costly in terms of your relationship with your daughter and perhaps others also. As I have said before, I appreciate the dometic problems with which you are beset and your position in this matter is clearly problematic to say the very least. Truly, I sympathise with you my dear fellow and do not envy you in the slightest.

Finally, no one “sins” by having their head shaved as that is purely a matter of personal choice and style and there is no issue of natural law morality involved (as regards heat loss one could always wear a hat during the cold winter season), no more than there is in using the bridge of one’s nose to hold one’s spectacles in place. True, the nose was not intended for this purpose, but a man does not sin because he uses his nose so, it is just being practical. It is special pleading to equate such things with clearly unnatural acts such as sodomy or beastality, as such examples are not on all fours with genuine infractions of the natural law.

That’s all. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Portrait,

Thanks very much indeed for your reply. We are making progress!

Unnatural
I have asked you to justify the jump from ‘gay sex is unnatural’ to the conclusion ‘gay sex is wrong’.

Now you do this by telling me in detail how sex organs are adapted for straight sex and by mentioning the teleology of sex. However all this proves is that gay sex is not natural but I have not challenged this.

My question is - given that it is unnatural WHY IS IT ALSO WRONG?

Now that is the question I ask you to give an answer to without bringing in God. I hope that is clear and I hope you now can do it.

Haircut
You answer will not do! Cutting my hair No 0 ‘frustrates the purpose’ of hair which is to keep my head warm. So Natural Law reasoning should declare that this is wrong. Now where am I mistaken? It is no good just saying that Natural Law reasoning does not condemn it. You have to show why it does not.

In philosophy this is called a counterexample. A thinker puts forward a viewpoint. An opponent says ‘if your view is right then in the following situation it gives a silly conclusion. That means your view is mistaken’. Can you see that that is what I am trying to do here? I claim that Natural Law morality entails that having a No 0 crewcut is immoral. Obviously it is not - which shows that Natural Law morality is mistaken. I hope you see what I am trying to do?

With good wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Hello Portrait,

Thanks very much indeed for your reply. We are making progress!

Unnatural
I have asked you to justify the jump from ‘gay sex is unnatural’ to the conclusion ‘gay sex is wrong’.

Now you do this by telling me in detail how sex organs are adapted for straight sex and by mentioning the teleology of sex. However all this proves is that gay sex is not natural but I have not challenged this.

My question is - given that it is unnatural WHY IS IT ALSO WRONG?

Now that is the question I ask you to give an answer to without bringing in God. I hope that is clear and I hope you now can do it.

Haircut
You answer will not do! Cutting my hair No 0 ‘frustrates the purpose’ of hair which is to keep my head warm. So Natural Law reasoning should declare that this is wrong. Now where am I mistaken? It is no good just saying that Natural Law reasoning does not condemn it. You have to show why it does not.

In philosophy this is called a counterexample. A thinker puts forward a viewpoint. An opponent says ‘if your view is right then in the following situation it gives a silly conclusion. That means your view is mistaken’. Can you see that that is what I am trying to do here? I claim that Natural Law morality entails that having a No 0 crewcut is immoral. Obviously it is not - which shows that Natural Law morality is mistaken. I hope you see what I am trying to do?

With good wishes

Laurie

Deat Laurie,

Thanyou most kindly for your reply. It is getting late so this must be my last one tonight I’m afraid.

If, as you freely admit, homosexual deviant acts are unnatural then they must necessarily be improper since they do not conform to some? universally acknowldeged natural law. We are back to man’s basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural. There is an instinctive recognition that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal (have we not covered all this before old chap?). The same reasoning is applicable to the case of homosexual aberrant acts; the natural sex partner of a man is a woman and vice-versa. Thus, man has a corresponding intuition regarding homosexuality that he does respecting beastality - that it is improper because it is unnatural. The two are inclusive, not exclusive.

The question that we should be debating surely is, who is the author of this basic ethical intuition and from whence does it come? Now I would contend, quite naturally of course, that only religion provides the most satisfying and convincing answer. What is your alternative explanation?

The problem with this haircut illustration is that it is not an issue of natural law morality and is therefore worthless as a comparison.

The biblical proscription of homosexual acts of deparavity is not an arbitrary prohibition. It. like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law - the design that God, its author, has built into human nature. Again, what other convincing alternative explanation do we have?

Well its way past by bedtime so we must continue tommorow.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

You were up late last night! Thanks for your latest missive.

UNNATURAL
You are giving me reasons why an unnatural act is also immoral and you say:

If, as you freely admit, homosexual deviant acts are unnatural then they must necessarily be improper since they do not conform to some? Universally acknowledged natural law

By unnatural you mean ‘frustrates the natural function of some bodily part’. Perhaps that is what you meant when you refer to ‘not conforming to a natural law’? Of course by that definition gay sex between men is unnatural. But I do not see why that makes it wrong. As I mentioned earlier lots of people agree that using contraception is unnatural [as you define it] but they do not think it is wrong. So they need a reason to go from ‘it is unnatural’ to ‘it is wrong’. So do I re gay sex. I repeat I agree gay sex is unnatural [as defined by you], that it frustrates one of the purposes of sex, that it goes against a natural law in the sense that it frustrates one of the natural purposes of sex…but I still want to know why that makes it wrong. And I want the reason not to refer to God because it has to convince an unbeliever.

But you also say:

We are back to man’s basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural.

There are two problems with this.
1] Other people do not have this intuition and so we need a way without reference to God to decide who is right.
2] Does the intuition have a reason behind it?

Silly example coming up! Suppose I have an intuition that wood pigeons ought to be exterminated. You ask me why. Would it be OK for me to say, “Well I just have this feeling inside me”? OR, should I not be able to give a reason as to why my intuition is correct.

You say that you have an intuition that ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’ and I ask you why this is so. Do you reply, ‘Well I have this feeling inside me’ OR do you give a reason to back up the intuition?

For my money an intuition is a strong feeling that a person has that something is right/wrong. However, if challenged, it seems to me to need a back up.

HAIRCUTS
The natural law argument re gay sex goes like this.

Gay sex frustrate the purpose of our sex organs
Frustrating the purpose of a bodily organ is unnatural
Unnatural => wrong
Conclusion: Gay sex is wrong

My counterexample

No 0 haircut frustrates the purpose of our hair
Frustrating the purpose of a bodily part is unnatural
Unnatural => wrong
Conclusion: No 0 haircut is wrong

Now, can you not see that the two arguments have an identical structure? So either both work and neither do so? It is no use saying that Natural Law ethics do not apply to hair. Why so, my hair is part of me just as my sex organs are? If frustrating the purpose of the latter is wrong why not the former? I do not see how you can pick and choose which parts of the body you can apply it to. Of course it gives an absurd result when applied to haircutting. Well I think it does when applied to gay sex! That is the point of the counter example.

All the best – hope you got some sleep.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

You were up late last night! Thanks for your latest missive.

UNNATURAL
You are giving me reasons why an unnatural act is also immoral and you say:

If, as you freely admit, homosexual deviant acts are unnatural then they must necessarily be improper since they do not conform to some? Universally acknowledged natural law

By unnatural you mean ‘frustrates the natural function of some bodily part’. Perhaps that is what you meant when you refer to ‘not conforming to a natural law’? Of course by that definition gay sex between men is unnatural. But I do not see why that makes it wrong. As I mentioned earlier lots of people agree that using contraception is unnatural [as you define it] but they do not think it is wrong. So they need a reason to go from ‘it is unnatural’ to ‘it is wrong’. So do I re gay sex. I repeat I agree gay sex is unnatural [as defined by you], that it frustrates one of the purposes of sex, that it goes against a natural law in the sense that it frustrates one of the natural purposes of sex…but I still want to know why that makes it wrong. And I want the reason not to refer to God because it has to convince an unbeliever.

But you also say:

We are back to man’s basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural.

There are two problems with this.
1] Other people do not have this intuition and so we need a way without reference to God to decide who is right.
2] Does the intuition have a reason behind it?

Silly example coming up! Suppose I have an intuition that wood pigeons ought to be exterminated. You ask me why. Would it be OK for me to say, “Well I just have this feeling inside me”? OR, should I not be able to give a reason as to why my intuition is correct.

You say that you have an intuition that ‘unnatural’ = ‘wrong’ and I ask you why this is so. Do you reply, ‘Well I have this feeling inside me’ OR do you give a reason to back up the intuition?

For my money an intuition is a strong feeling that a person has that something is right/wrong. However, if challenged, it seems to me to need a back up.

HAIRCUTS
The natural law argument re gay sex goes like this.

Gay sex frustrate the purpose of our sex organs
Frustrating the purpose of a bodily organ is unnatural
Unnatural => wrong
Conclusion: Gay sex is wrong

My counterexample

No 0 haircut frustrates the purpose of our hair
Frustrating the purpose of a bodily part is unnatural
Unnatural => wrong
Conclusion: No 0 haircut is wrong

All the best – hope you got some sleep.

Regards

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and sorry for the delay in responding to your latest post. Thankyou for your patience. Rest assured, I will always reply to your postings at some point.

Homosexual deviant acts are wrong and improper in exactly the same way in which the grevious vice of beasteality is wrong and improper. Biologically, the human body is just not designed for these type of alternative sexual variants. Moreover, they serve no useful purpose for the organism or the race and militate against the normal function of the organism and the perpetuation of the species.

Again one could mention the argument from anatomy. It is perfectly clear that anatomically and physiologically the ailimentary and the reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems, that is, man does not have a cloaca or the posterior orifice that serves as the one opening for genital, uniary and intestinal tracts in amphibians, birds and reptiles. Now even very primative cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, carnal copulation and child birth. Indeed, our own children appear to “intuitively” understand these facts.

Moreover, the natural function of carnal copulation is reproduction and since homosexual aberrant acts can in no wise be pro-creative, its sole purpose is hedonistic which obviously violates the natural order by any criterion. Clearly, the normative and complimentary function from the natural law irrefragibly demonstrates that the opposite sexes of human beings are reproductive in nature and that this is the norm.

As regards man’s ethical intuitiion, what is the origin of this and whence did it come? This is a most crucial question since how one answers it will determine one’s entire world-view. How did man come to have this innate faculty to distinguish right from wrong in the first place? It seems to be utterly incongrous with the view that man is the mere product of random evoluotionary forces. For me Laurie the fact that man does have a moral conscience at all is cogent evidence of our indestructable moral nature and a sure and certain proof that God bears witness to himself in our hearts. Look, old chap, every man knows in his innermost being that he is obligated to do and be good and where else could this absolute obligation come but from God? Man’s conscience is truly the Voice of God within his soul. Have you ever given any thought to this matter?

Re. your haircut counterexample. It is surely infinitely more disordered to use our sexual organs for uses other than their intended purpose than it is to have shaved head or to wear glasses on the bridge of one’s nose. This would be conceded by most people, unless they had some particular theory to uphold. It is not so much a case of picking and choosing, more a case of getting a correct and sensible view of the relative importance of things.

That’s all for now. Goodnight dear friend.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

PS Thankyou for your message, very good to hear from you old chap.

 

[PJM]

=Laurie Gibson;6626665]Dear Portrait,

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.

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:

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!

Laurie, the CC position affirmed in the Bible date long before the begainins of the CC and even the Bible. It goes back to Adam an Eve and Why God Created both an Adam and a Eve…

Gen. 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Gen. 2: 21-25 "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

**Gen. 3:16 ** "To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in hildbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Portrait,

Thanks again for your always full reply.
**
UNNATURAL**
I am having trouble getting you to see the point I am making. No doubt you feel that I am not understanding your answers. So I am going to try very hard to make myself clear. On your side have a careful read to see if you can get the points I am trying to make – no doubt very poorly.

Homosexual deviant acts are wrong and improper in exactly the same way in which the grievous vice of bestiality is wrong and improper.

I think that there are reasons why bestiality is wrong which do not apply to gay sex. To discuss this further might take us too far afield.

Biologically, the human body is just not designed for these type of alternative sexual variants.

I agree with you completely but what I keep asking is why that makes it wrong. You assume that if we use the body for something for which it was not designed therefore that is wrong. I am asking for a justification of this reasoning.

Moreover, they serve no useful purpose for the organism

You mean, of course, no biological purpose, [gay sex has a social function] but you are correct but again I ask, why does that make it wrong? You assume that if we do something that ‘serves no useful purpose etc’ then it is wrong. I am asking you for the justification of this reasoning.

militate against the normal function of the organism and

You mean the normal biological function and you are correct. Same question – why does that make it wrong? You assume that if something ‘militates against the normal biological function of an organism’ then it is wrong. I am asking you for the justification of this reasoning.

the perpetuation of the species

Now this is a reason. If gay sex meant that the humans were in danger of extinction then, assuming we think that survival of humanity is a good thing * we have a reason against gay sex. However as most people are straight and our problem is more likely to be overpopulation I do not think this actually applies.

Again one could mention the argument from anatomy. It is perfectly clear that anatomically and physiologically the alimentary and the reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems,

You know what I am going to say. I agree – but why does that make gay sex wrong? You assume that if some part of the anatomy is used for something that it did not naturally evolve to do, then it is wrong. I am asking you for the justification of this reasoning.

Moreover, the natural function of carnal copulation is reproduction and since homosexual aberrant acts can in no wise be pro-creative, its sole purpose is hedonistic

Well apart from the fact that for a faithful gay couple the act also expresses deep love, I agree but you assume… I think you know what I am going to say!

which obviously violates the natural order by any criterion.

If by ‘violates the natural order’ you mean that we are using a bodily organ for something that is not usual function then of course I agree but you assume that therefore this is wrong. Again I ask you for your justification.

I have repeated myself at length to try and get over my point. You seem to think that just because something is ‘unnatural’ it must be wrong. I want you to justify that jump because it is not obvious at all to me. For you to reply by saying in illustrating the ‘unnaturalness’ at length does not help me. I do not dispute the ‘unnaturalness’ it is the ‘wrongness’ I cannot see

**
INTUITION**
I have promised you that I would discuss this important topic when we finish with gay sex. At the moment we are doing that without involving God so your reply is not to the point.

**
HAIRCUTS**
My point is that, by exactly the same reasoning that you use to condemn gay sex, we should also condemn No 0 haircuts. You reply that sex is more important than haircuts. Quite correct!

So I will concede that No 0 haircuts are less sinful than gay sex if you will agree that BOTH are sinful.

All the best – take your time.*

 

[Portrait]

Laurie, the CC position affirmed in the Bible date long before the begainins of the CC and even the Bible. It goes back to Adam an Eve and Why God Created both an Adam and a Eve…

Gen. 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Gen. 2: 21-25 "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

**Gen. 3:16 ** "To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in hildbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Dear PJM,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your contribution.

How so refreshing it is to hear the pure word of God in Sacred Scripture amidst all this natural law reasoning! For us as Catholics this really clinches the whole argument quite conclusively since, as you correctly state, this is antecedent to both the bible and the Church. Indeed, our rejection of homosexual deviant acts does not rest on a few isolated and obscure proof texts, whose traditional explanation can be debunked, but on the positive teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage, which you have brought to our notice. As a matter of fact the *negative *prohibitions of homosexual acts of depravity only really make any sense in the light of this positive teaching.

However, this is of no real help to my learned friend Laurie, who wishes me to argue my case against homosexual behaviour purely on the basis of the natural law without recourse to religious argumentation. Thus whilst he would concur that biologically speaking human beings are not designed for intimate ‘face to face’ coitius, physically or genetically, he is asking how one jumps from unnatural to “wrong”. Notwithstanding my efforts thus far, I have been unable to provide the greatly impressive and decisive argument that will bowl him over. Quite frankly I do not know of any further arguments that could be adduced to convince him that if one acknowledges that homosexual acts are unnatural then, by definition, they are wrong and improper becuase they violate the natural law. If you are able to provide any additional reasoned arguments against homosexuality, then your remarks would be most welcome and much appreciated.

Thankyou again for your contribution to the debate.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

FOR PORTRAIT - PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATION OF 'NATURAL’

Philosophers are inclined to ask the question, ‘What do you mean?’ to help with difficult problems. Let us do this with the concept of ‘natural’ which is giving us trouble. In fact it has several meanings - I’ll consider three.

Natural(1) = 'What people did before we became civilised.
Under this meaning it is not natural to drive a car or live in a brick house because stone age man did not do this. Let us call this Natural(1) to distinguish it from other meanings.

Natural{2) = Acting in the way that my emotions/instincts incline me.
Under this meaning it is unnatural for me to be faithful to my wife. Male mammals are seldom faithful if they can get away with it. Let us call this Natural(2)

Natural(3) = Using part of one’s body in such a way as to frustrate the purpose for which it was evolved.
This is the way that you and your Church use the term. Let us call this natural(3)

None of these ways is the correct one. It just so happens that the one word ‘natural’ has several meanings when you think about it.

Here is the moral of the story.
If a ‘back to nature person’ said we ought to stop living in houses because houses are unnatural(1), we would reply, "Yes, they are unnatural(1) but why does that make it wrong?’
Similarly if something is unnatural(2) i.e. in the second sense above, that does not make it wrong necessarily

So can you see why a philosopher might ask the same question about 'natural(3)? If it makes sense to say of the first two senses, “Yes, it is unnatural but why is it wrong?” surely we can ask the same question about natural(3) the sense in which your church uses the term?

To be fair to you I have never seen it done and you might be correct to suspect that it cannot be done outside of a religious belief. Intuition does not work because my intuition is the opposite of yours here and, outside of religion, there is no way to decide whose conscience is giving the truth.

Perhaps then you may have to say that there is no way to justify your condemnation of gay sex to a non-believer and leave it at that. [Or at any rate you have not found it]

If so, let us move on to the topic of cutting my hair and finish that. My hair is getting long! Then we can consider other matters. If you like - I’m feeling generous - we can look at conscience.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings. Sorry that I have not responded sooner but I have been enyoying the glorious weather that we are currently experiencing. What a pleasant change after such a very lengthy and cold winter.

Laurie, your questions cannot be satisfactorily addressed until you inform me as to what you think natural moral law is based upon and from whence it is derived. You are agreed that sodomy and beastality are unnatural, but what criterion do you employ to make such an appraisal? In short I need to know what your standard of morality is before I can proceed further. So as the saying goes, please help me so that I can help you.

We would agree that in every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man clearly knows interiorly when he is doing wrong; something in his innermost being rebukes his conduct. He instinctively knows that he is going against some inward voice. This is the law of conscience (we must treat of this subject as it is pivitol to our whole current discussion) dictating to us a law we did not make and which no man could have made, for this voice protests irrespective of whether other men know are conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we may wish to do, warning us beforehand and censuring us after its violation. Now I would contend that the law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes some lawgiver external to ourselves who has written this law on our hearts. Since only God could do this, it is certain that he is the author of this law and that, most fundamentally, He must also exist in the first place.

Of course, you will most probably want to refute this, but you need to tell me who, or what, is the origin of this innate faculty to distinguish right from wrong. Sorry to press you on this issue but I do not think we can move any further forward until you do.

This will be my final post this side of the weekend, so I will leave you with this to cogitate over until my next communication on Monday afternoon.

Have an enjoyable weekend old chap, whatever you are doing. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[PJM]

=Portrait;6660280]Dear PJM,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your contribution.

How so refreshing it is to hear the pure word of God in Sacred Scripture amidst all this natural law reasoning! For us as Catholics this really clinches the whole argument quite conclusively since, as you correctly state, this is antecedent to both the bible and the Church. Indeed, our rejection of homosexual deviant acts does not rest on a few isolated and obscure proof texts, whose traditional explanation can be debunked, but on the positive teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage, which you have brought to our notice. As a matter of fact the *negative *prohibitions of homosexual acts of depravity only really make any sense in the light of this positive teaching.

However, this is of no real help to my learned friend Laurie, who wishes me to argue my case against homosexual behaviour purely on the basis of the natural law without recourse to religious argumentation. Thus whilst he would concur that biologically speaking human beings are not designed for intimate ‘face to face’ coitius, physically or genetically, he is asking how one jumps from unnatural to “wrong”. Notwithstanding my efforts thus far, I have been unable to provide the greatly impressive and decisive argument that will bowl him over. Quite frankly I do not know of any further arguments that could be adduced to convince him that if one acknowledges that homosexual acts are unnatural then, by definition, they are wrong and improper becuase they violate the natural law. If you are able to provide any additional reasoned arguments against homosexuality, then your remarks would be most welcome and much appreciated.

Thankyou again for your contribution to the debate.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

***Thank you so much:thumbsup:

In my understanding one can deny truth, but not actually alter it. Objectively* there must be moral rights and wrongs and Logic affirms “cause and effect.”

Cearly reproductive parts are “made” and given for the purpose of reproduction. If I understand it correctly [and I confess, I may not:blush:] animals only mate based on sexual instict to propagate the species? [No casual sex so to speak].

We know that NOT evey sexual encounter between a man and a women; even in un- protected sex automatically results in a pregnancy. WHY?

Obviously who ever desinged our sexual “system” had a plan. That plan evolves around the ability to propagate the human species. Many “good things” can be [and often are] misused. Does that mis-use now make it “right”?

Humanity is created with both physical and Spiriual parts. They are contianed in the same “package” because they are to be used togeather as well as being co-joined. These Spiritual Parts are our minds, intellects and freewills.

It takes an extreme lack of Wisdom and Understanding of a Pride-filled mind, to presume we have these gifts [only humanity has them] for simply human pleasure; without attached responsibility. These gifts can be demonistrated but not quantified: size, weight, color, shape. Because they are Spiriual Things and we are Physical Things we can rule our inheriting them from our parents. So detrmining where they come from and why we have them seems a worthy exercise.

They exist to direct the use of our Right and wrong freewill judgments; especially on Moral issues.

Love nd prayers,
Pat**

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

The weather is lovely here too. Walks and cycling in order. Thanks for your post.

You rather seem to have ignored my two previous posts or do I take it you have given up on the onerous task of justifying your views to a non-believer?

So far as Natural Law goes I need to know what it is you mean by it. Philosopher’s question – sorry but without it clarity is impossible. I know you mean by ‘unnatural’ anything that frustrates the purpose of some bodily organ or part. Natural Law seems to mean in this context the Rule that says ‘If it is unnatural then it is wrong’. Which, of course, is exactly what you are trying to justify. Baptising this Rule by calling it a Natural Law is OK by me if that is what you want to do – but it does not help in itself to justify it!

Obviously you think that Natural Law is more than that. I suppose you call what ‘your natural sense of right and wrong’ tells you to be the Natural Law. Well I am not as enamoured of it as you are. Obviously most people are socialised into the mores of the society in which they are brought up. They internalise what they are taught and, when a situation arises where it is appropriate, they remember its precepts. The voice of conscience. I have no problem with that because in most societies, in general, the rules about right and wrong are usually fine. But when society accepts something that is in fact wrong, it is rare to find the moral sense/intuition/consciences of the people telling them that. Slavery and women are two obvious examples. Therefore on contentious matters it is dangerous to say ‘my conscience/intuition… tells me so and so’ – you need some way to justify what it says.

Which brings us right back to where we started. Your moral sense says that ‘unnatural’ => ‘wrong’ OR, putting it another way, ‘Going against the Natural Law that says unnatural => wrong is immoral.’ I am asking you to justify what your conscience & Natural Law are telling you.

Hope you have a good weekend. 10k fun run for me!

Best wishes

Laurie

PS You left out telling me if I could have a haircut. Please let me know.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Hello and Cordial greetings. I do trust that you had a splendid weekend, enjoying the glorious weather - even on your fun run, which, in the heat, sounds jolly strenuous stuff.
Thankyou for your post on Friday and the PM.

By Natural law I mean the basic, ethical intuition that men have that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unatural. Natural law reasoning is in fact the the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. Thus, for example, it is the dignity and value that each man possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse and so forth.

Our reproductive organs are manifestly designed for certain functions and by light of reason alone one can tell that male and female organs are made for different purposes. Moreover, by the light of reason alone we can determine what those purposes are. Thus when someone uses their sexual organs for purposes other than those for which they were specifically designed, then those uses, or rather abuses, are disordered and wrong. By way of analogy, let us suppose that someone decided that they were going to eat for pleasure alone (i.e. gluttony) and not wishing to experience the natural result of such activity, deliberately induced vomiting so as to avoid weight gain. Such an activity is clearly not ordered towards the natural process of eating and digestion and is therefore wrong. Indeed this fact is acknowledged by the mental health professionals as an eating disorder (bulimia). Such action is plainly wrong since food is intended to go on a one way trip only, so to speak; the digestive organs being designed for this very purpose. Now as with bulimia, homosexual deviant acts are likewise intrinsically disordered and contary to the natural law. It is infinitely more disordered to use our reproductive organs for uses other than their intended purpose than it is to deliberatley induce vomiting; it is of no consequence that one ‘enjoys’ vomiting up one’s supper, or has real romantic feelings for someone of the same gender. It unnatural and wrong behaviour and our bodies, which God gave us tell us that this is so.

Just as many bulimia sufferers assert that there is nothing wrong them, so likewise do many homosexuals emphatically affirm that there is nothing wrong with their sexual disorder. This proves absolutely nothing, except just how unwell and how blinded to the reality of their plight they actually are.

However, I think this is a good cue to move our discussion on to the whole topic of conscience and since you have already raised this issue in your post, I shall take it that you have no objection. As you know, I have been desirous myself to discuss this matter for somewhile.

By conscience I mean that every man knows, in his innermost being, that he is absolutely obligated to be and to do good and avoid evil… Moreover, the source of this absolute obligation could only be God. Thus everyone knows God, however, obscurely, by this moral intuition which we usually call conscience. Indeed, this is why in my previous posts I have refered to conscience as the ‘voice of God’ in the soul.

Laurie, you appear to be suggesting that the essential conventions of society are the source of authority of conscience. Do I understand you aright dear chap? If so then I am afraid that that position is unsustainable, notwithstanding the fact that it is a popular and widely held belief.

The problem is that society does not denote something over and above other men, something like God let us say, although many men treat treat society exactly like God, even in speech, almost lowering their voice to a whisper whenever the sacred name is uttered. However, society is nothing more than people like myself. Now, what authority do they have over me?; are they always right?; must I never disobey them? What sort of blind status quo conservatism is this? Should a German citizen have obeyed society in the Nazi era? To say that the mores of society are the origin and source of conscience is to say that when one prisoner becomes a thousand prisoners, they then become the judge. It is to say that mere quantity results in absolute authority; that what the individual has in his soul is nothing, no authoritative conscience, but that what society has is. That is clearly a logical impossibility, like thinking stones can think if only one has enough of them! As I understand it, some proponents of artificial intelligence believe exactly that kind of logical fallacy: that electrons and chips and chunks of metal can think if only you have enough of them in the right geometrical arrangements.

I will discuss warped consciences next time.

Hope the lecture went well this afternoon.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS Go ahead and have your trim old chap; my intuitive moral sense tells me instinctively that you will not be doing that which is unnatural or wrong!

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Greetings & thanks very much for your reply.
**
Unnatural**
You say;
By Natural law I mean the basic, ethical intuition that men have that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural.

Well (1) this is not an intuition that I have and (2) I want to know why this intuition is correct. Again you do not tell me but rather go into detail of how gay sex is unnatural –something I have never denied. You also say that vomiting up one’s food is bad because it is unnatural. Again I do not agree. I do think it is probably wrong but not because it is unnatural. That is because I do not see how just because something is unnatural it must therefore be wrong. Have a look at Post 148 and umpteen others where I have come back again and again to the same question.

Be honest now – as you said to PJM – you do not think it can be done. So let’s leave it at that.

**
Conscience**
I think you overplay the matter. I certainly have a feeling that certain things are right and others are wrong. [One thing being the wonderful goodness of faithful gay relationships.] I see no reason to attribute this feeling to God.

I do not think however that what my conscience or anyone else’s tells them must be correct. You point out yourself that a person who was brought up in Nazi Germany would have a conscience that tells them things which you and I would regard as mistaken. Your conscience and mine are at odds over gay relationships.

Obviously conscience cannot be relied upon to give us the truth. You may say that some people’s consciences are defective. * But the fact that they disagree means that we must look at some other way to decide about right and wrong different from our conscience. No doubt you will say it is the Church.

Regards

Laurie

PS I am still worried about my haircut. I do not want to frustrate the purpose of my having hair. Natural Law must condemn such a thing. Perhaps a little sin but a sin. Do help me out here with a decent argument*

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Re Conscience con’t

Conscience is simply a judgment of the intelligence applied to moral issues such as abortion and homosexuality. In maths the mind concludes that two and two make four; in music it will judge as to whether the notes harmonize with one another or not. In matters apertaining to morality it judges that good must be done and evil avoided. Moreover, when some particular course of action presents itself, it will decide as to whether that course of action is in harmony, to continue with the musical metaphor, with good principles or not. The crucial question that must be asked and satisfactorily answered is, whence come the principles with which behaviour must be compared? As a Christian I would contend that only religion provides the most satisfying answer to this most urgent question. These principles are part of our very nature, indelibly impressed upon us by the Creator Himself; indeed it is in this sense that conscience is truly the voice of God within us. Every man is born with an urge towards a perfect development, but this will only be possible with a well ordered life. Hence, the innate conviction within that the order of nature must be respected. As a creature man has an inborn propensity to respect the rights of His Creator; as a social creature, he has an inborn propensity to respect the rights of his fellow men; as an intelligent creature and self-regulating he tends to respect his own dignity. Our conscience manifests itself by interior approval or reproach according to our observance or violation of these natural obligations imposed by the God who made man as he is (see Romans 2: 14,15).

However owing to the sad effects of sin men can have a warped and radically defective conscience and so it cannot be the final court of appeal where right and wrong conduct is concerned. The final court of appeal must always be the divine law of God. Unfortuantely, a man’s conscience can be objectively erroneous, either through want of knowledge or through prejudice. Thus God’s law says “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it, it is perversion” (Lev. 18: 22,23). Yet many people say, quite arbitrarily, that they cannot conscientiously see anything immoral or depraved in homosexual deviant acts but they can in beasteality. Now if such persons are being truthful, and let us give them the benefit of the doubt, then they provide irrefragible proof that they have distorted their conscience and that they out of harmony with God’s criterion of right and wrong. By the way one does not necessarily have to be a Catholic to believe that homosexuality is improper and unnatural. On the contrary, myriads of good principled non-Christians also believe that homosexual deviant acts are unnatural and immoral and to this extent, at least, their opinion is in accord with the teaching of the Church and Sacred Scripture.

That all for today old chap. Over and out.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Fine so conscience is not the final court of appeal - because an individual’s conscience may be defective. The final court of appeal is God’s Law as stated in the Bible? Is this correct?

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and good day to you. Thankyou again for your responses to my posts.

Firstly, it is because men do not always hear the voice of conscience aright (you yourself provide an example of this since you see nothing immoral in homosexual deviant acts) the first obligation a man has is to form his conscience by diligently seeking after the truth, especially the truth about whether God has revealed to mankind clear moral maps (i.e. Sacred Scripture and the Church). If we discover that He has indeed revealed such maps, then whenever conscience seems to tell us to disobey them, as in the case of homosexuality, then we will know that our consciences are not functioning properly and are therefore not to be trusted. On the formation of conscience the* Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Conscience must be informed and moral judgement enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates judgements according to reason,* in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator**. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are **subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgement and to **reject authoritative teachings" (para. 1783, emphasis mine).

Secondly, that you claim that your conscience does not convict you that homosexual aberrant acts are wrong and improper simply means that, for whatever reason, your moral compass is not functioning properly; “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgement in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgement that departs from them” (CCC, para. 1786).

Thirdly, the point I was making to PJM was not that the arguments I adduced were not compelling but that they were not compelling enough for you. That is why I said I had been unable to provide* the* greatly impressive argument to persuade you, and, that I did not know of any further arguments to convince you that homosexual acts were unnatural and wrong becuase they violated the natural law. However, that is not to say that someone more conversant with natural law arguments against homosexual deviancy may indeed be able to present a really cogent and irrefutable case.

Laurie, you say the you have “a feeling that certain things are right and others are wrong” but that you “see no reason to attribute this feeling to God”, then to what or to whom do you ascribe it to? Once the authority of conscience has been granted (and it is by most men), then the existence of God also becomes an ineluctable conclusion; it seems wholly unreasonable and illogical to acknoweldge conscience and its authority and then refuse to believe in the God who gave it.

In the final analysis only an infallible and authoritative entity can provide the necessary criterion of truth with which to appraise moral conduct. This is why all wise and earnest men need to undertake extensive study of the Catholic claims to establish whether or not they can be validated, both historically and theologically. If indeed they can be shown to be true and trustworthy, and they most certainly can, then a man has no choice but to submit himself to the “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, founded by Jesus Christ. Please do not dismiss the Church’s teaching on faith morals as arrant nonsense or outmoded superstition, until you have thoroughly investigated her claims using relibale sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You are a learned man and therefore owe it to yourself to use your reasoning faculty wisely by examining the Church’s teachings. “Ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin. In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits” (CCC, para. 1791)

Finally, as regards your haircut, since you are not going to shave your head completely (Yul Bryner style), but merely have a trim, I do not think you need to be anxious about any infraction of the natural law old chap. You will at least have some hair to keep you warm - not that you will be needing too much of it now anyway.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks once again.

1] Yes, obviously one of our consciences is not working correctly re faithful gay sex. So we need to find a way to decide between them.
2] You propose the Bible and, amazingly quote Leviticus at me, Leviticus that tells me not to plant different crops in the same field, to cut my beard in a certain way and to stone adulterers! Why should I heed what it says about gay sex? And this is the problem with the Bible; it does not speak with one voice and can be interpreted to mean just about anything.
3] Your church is not much help here either, it may have done good during its existence but it has also done harm and I can see no reason to take what it says as authoritative.
4] So there we have it – you have not been able to give me a reason why if something is unnatural it is also wrong. Please read my earlier post where I ask you the same question about six times. You studiously ignored it!!! All you have ever done is to repeat in different words and at great length how and why gay sex is not natural. Quite pointless because I agree with you! But I want to know why, if it is unnatural, it is also wrong. Are you ever going to answer this question because so far it has not been me rejecting your answer – you haven’t even answered!
5] You say:
Laurie, you say that you have “a feeling that certain things are right and others are wrong” but that you “see no reason to attribute this feeling to God”, then to what or to whom do you ascribe it to? Once the authority of conscience has been granted (and it is by most men), then the existence of God also becomes an ineluctable conclusion; it seems wholly unreasonable and illogical to acknowledge conscience and its authority and then refuse to believe in the God who gave it.
I do not accept the ‘authority of conscience’ because there is no guarantee that mine or anyone’s is correct. I need to look at what it says and ask if it is correct. As people’s consciences usually tell them things that they were taught in childhood my best guess is that this early socialisation is its cause. But not being a sociologist or a psychologist I do not know. You, it seems, must be an expert in both these studies and know that it is not possible to explain conscience like this. You are sure it must be due to God and more than that the Catholic God. Gosh you are clever!

Very clever indeed because the moral argument for the existence of God, which is what you are trying to run, is thought be most philosophers, even Catholic ones, to be weak. Reason – there is no way you can be sure that there is no scientific explanation of our conscience.
6] I am joking about my hair but I am also serious. As I have explained, exactly the same argument that shows gay sex is wrong shows that having a haircut is wrong. Maybe the first is worse than the second – but both are wrong! Obviously there is something implausible with natural law reasoning if it shows this. But are you going to answer or are you going to ignore this awkward, and amusing, yet important little question again?

6] But, as we are going in for comprehensive posts again. All the above is interesting, difficult ethical reasoning. Such reasoning can blind a person and make them do wrong things because they are convinced by some clever but specious reasoning that they are right. Catholics do this re faithful gay partnerships. The goodness of these wonderful relationships is obvious to anyone with an ounce of fellow feeling yet the Catholic declares them to be defective and condemns the gay person to Hell. In so doing they show themselves to have lost the ethical intuition you so prize and to have become desensitized to goodness. [Which I was once told is the unforgiveable sin]

All the best,

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Fine so conscience is not the final court of appeal - because an individual’s conscience may be defective. The final court of appeal is God’s Law as stated in the Bible? Is this correct?

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Reason, when it is right, is good enough as far as it goes, but it is very subject to error, and when right, does not go far enough. We need, as I have not tired of saying, the additional truth revealed by God and taught us by the Christian religion. Reason cannot refute the claims of Christ, and in fact pre-disposes us to accept them. Reason per se gives inadequate knowledge only and is utterly powerless to give any vital impulse to observe its own moral precepts.

Therefore, God’s law in Sacred Scripture is always the ultimate authority. However, the interpretation of the bible is entrusted to the Magisterium (or teaching office) of the Church, held by the Pope and Bishops. Having said that the “Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant” (CCC, 86).

I can enlarge upon this if you wish.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait