Help me understand sexual ethics and the natural law

[LewisTheotokos]

Hello,

I am an old poster with a new name. Since my searching several years ago, I have entered the Church and I love it!

To preface, my question today is in regards to the natural law and sexual ethics. I am interested in understanding and clarifying this issue on the secular level, i.e. how would I present this to a non-believer? So I know that marriage is in part valuable because it points to the reality of God’s love. But to bring that up in a debate with a non-believer isn’t helpful.

My understanding of the natural law is that some things are according to nature, in the sense that they have an inbuilt purpose. If we work counter to that in-built purpose, the effect is damaging. So sodomy is damaging because the act denies the natural purpose of sexual union and says something contrary to the original purpose.

This seems slightly weak to me, I think because there is more to the story than I can describe. My trouble is also that it seems that working contrary to our in-built nature isn’t necessarily bad, or at least is only venial. So for example, bulimia works contrary to our nature, but isn’t regarded as a mortal sin (as far as I know). Or if we think about some cultural traditions such as lip-disks, foot binding, plastic surgery, tattooing, piercing or the taste in some African cultures to elongate the neck by compressing the rib cage in women. These aren’t treated as serious or grave offenses (as far as I know) even though in some cases, they do significant damage to the body. Comparatively, masturbation seems almost trivial.

Can anyone help clarify this line of thought?

Peace,
LT

 

[bbentrup]

Your comparison is wanting - it appears you see all those examples as mutilating the body. However, masturbation is not a mutilation of the body, it is mutilation (‘perversion’ is probably the better term) of the sexual act.

So it is not reasonable to expect that showing how something that may or may not hurt the body will provide us any new wisdom on whether or not masturbation or another sexual act hurts us or not. I think you are going to have to rephrase your question if you want to continue your hypothetical argument.

 

[Lancer]

LewisTheotokos…Help me understand sexual ethics and the natural law “…This seems slightly weak to me, I think because there is more to the story than I can describe. My trouble is also that it seems that working contrary to our in-built nature isn’t necessarily bad, or at least is only venial…”

I strongly recommend that you peruse the CCC…Here is some of what the CCC says about the moral law:

THE MORAL LAW

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
​

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

Here is some of the CCC’s natural moral law teachings:

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW****1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 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 societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11​

Remember some people have a great will to disbelieve the horrible facts of waht happens by living without/ignoring the natural moral law…the common good of society/all persons. They will take an exception and want to make a societal common good law…(e.g., “because” some women/girls despair in pregnancy and without full knowledge/understanding of the help available for them/their baby…they abort their child…they kill an innocent person…and in the (before Roe vs Wade) illegal process, they suffer physical harm/damage in a backroom abortion…so we make a societal law to say that abortion is okay…a legal right to kill your child…that it is okay to kill an innocent person). I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say.

The late UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick said it in another way…she was referring to Western (the USA in particular) political society’s will to disbelieve the factual threats to our nation/people and our way of life…but her principle holds for people of good will who ignore and have *a will to disbelieve the natural moral laws *so necessary for the Common Good of the our society/country/people…and instead believe in some “pseudo-tolerance-philosophy”…that actually destroys our culture and society…to say nothing of the harm it causes to those persons in particular…that they set out to help.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, “The Will to Disbelieve” (Hoover Institute, 1984): "The will to disbelieve the horrible** is, I believe, a defining characteristic of the contemporary West, of no society more than our own.

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/09/jeane_j_kirkpatrick_the_will_t_1.html

Pax Christi

 

[Ron_Conte]

Natural law is the promulgation of the eternal moral law in all creation, especially in created persons, both in the nature of each created thing, and in the ordered relationship between created things.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that ‘knowledge of the eternal law is imprinted on us.’ "

This imprinting of the eternal moral law upon human persons is inherent to human nature itself; it is not merely an addition to, or one aspect of, human nature. For all that God created is inherently good, and therefore all that God created is a reflection of God, who is Goodness itself. Human persons are said to be made in the image of God because free will and reason make created persons more like God than other created things. Thus the natural law is first and foremost found in human nature itself.

The eternal moral law is God, and so perfect knowledge of that law is only obtained with perfect knowledge of God in the Beatific Vision of the very Nature (Essence) of God. But the moral law can also be known by the use of reason to consider all that God has created, i.e. the goodness and good order of natural things. All that is good in Creation is a reflection of God who is Just. Therefore, justice is inherent to all created things, to the natural order of all created things, and especially to the hearts and minds of all created persons. Free will and reason, and our understanding of the natural world and its proper order, give us the ability to understand what is just and what is unjust. Thus, the natural law is the promulgation of the moral law into the very nature of all created things, especially created persons.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The natural law is promulgated by the very fact that God instilled it into man’s mind so as to be known by him naturally.”

But the natural law is no different than the moral law, except that the natural law is the means by which we know the moral law. Therefore, the natural law is the promulgation of the moral law, so that this eternal moral law may be known naturally by created persons.

[Romans]
{2:14} For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature those things which are of the law, such persons, not having the law, are a law unto themselves.
{2:15} For they reveal the work of the law written in their hearts, while their conscience renders testimony about them, and their thoughts within themselves also accuse or even defend them,
{2:16} unto the day when God shall judge the hidden things of men, through Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel.

The natural law is nothing other than the promulgation of the eternal moral law by God within the nature and order of Creation. Therefore, the natural law is also universal and immutable.

 

[LewisTheotokos]

OK,
This is helpful. I am getting a more complete idea of natural law.
Let me see if I can focus my question on sexual ethics into a more condensed form.

In the case of Bulimia, a person acts contrary to their nature and uses food in an incorrect way. This is considered by us as very unhealthy but not necessarily immoral.

In the case of masturbation, a person acts contrary to their sexual nature and uses their body in an incorrect way. This is considered by us as immoral but not necessarily unhealthy.

Why is one simply unhealthy and the other immoral?

-LT

 

[Ron_Conte]

OK,
This is helpful. I am getting a more complete idea of natural law.
Let me see if I can focus my question on sexual ethics into a more condensed form.

In the case of Bulimia, a person acts contrary to their nature and uses food in an incorrect way. This is considered by us as very unhealthy but not necessarily immoral.

In the case of masturbation, a person acts contrary to their sexual nature and uses their body in an incorrect way. This is considered by us as immoral but not necessarily unhealthy.

Why is one simply unhealthy and the other immoral?

-LT

Bulimia would be immoral if it were a freely chosen act; since it is a result of serious psycholgical problems, the culpability is reduced accordingly. Culpability for masturbation can also be reduced by factors, such as ignorance that it is gravely immoral, or psychological factors, etc.

The natural law also considers the proper relationship between created things, for example, that human sexuality is properly expressed in marriage, in a way that is procreative and unitive.

It is difficult for fallen human persons, whose will and intellect have been weakened and obscured by original sin and personal sin, to perceive the moral law as expressed in nature. And so God has given us Divine Revelation, which also contains the whole moral law. So you should not expect to be able to perceive every moral truth by use of your own reason and natural law, since we are all sinners.

 

[Exalt]

Your comparison is wanting - it appears you see all those examples as mutilating the body. However, masturbation is not a mutilation of the body, it is mutilation (‘perversion’ is probably the better term) of the sexual act.

So it is not reasonable to expect that showing how something that may or may not hurt the body will provide us any new wisdom on whether or not masturbation or another sexual act hurts us or not. I think you are going to have to rephrase your question if you want to continue your hypothetical argument.

In other words, the argument that “unnatural things are immoral” only applies to sexuality. That, of course, doesn’t make sense. If unnatural things are immoral, all unnatural things should be immoral: cars, tattoos, bicycles, shoes, LASIK, nail polish, body piercings, etc. Just saying, “oh hey, this rule actually only applies to sexuality” makes it a very weak argument.

 

[centurionguard]

Many could bring up variable reflective thoughts on the subject you speak of in comprehensive invoking hindsight in the (“Understanding Of Sexual Ethics and Natural Law”) Saint Augustine defined “virtue” as a quality of inner goodness through which one lives well, through which one avoids acting badly. As a permanent capacity (“habitus”) of the soul, virtue is determined by value, which gives it direction…a mediator or image of a deeper inner reality which attracts and motivates us. For a Christian, the person of Christ is the supreme value and norm.

Christ taught us what virtue is, above all in His own all-embracing love. What virtue is appears in the very excess of His loving Sacrifice by which He offered Himself for the Glory of God and the Salvation of mankind. In Christ there is the most tremendous union of opposites without force or constraints. In Him is the most perfect and harmonious balance of virtue with all the haunting beauty of consummate goodness.

On Sexual Ethics I Quote Pope John Paul II

In the mystery of creation–on the basis of the original and constituent solicitude ") of his being…man was endowed with a deep unity between what is humanly and through the body; male in him and what is humanly and through the body; female in him.

Ethical determinations of concrete situations and specific cases are based upon norms that articulate values. (“Values mediate our Faith Vision, our understanding of the meaning and purpose of life”) As followers of Jesus Christ and members of His body, our vision of life’s meaning and purpose finds its “fullest expression” within the context of Christian biblical revelation. As Christians, our ethical course of action flows from our Faith perception of who we are in relationship to the God who has revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ. Our everyday moral judgments about what is good and bad, right and wrong, therefore, cannot be based solely upon empirical evidence, nor philosophical abstractions, but rather upon Christian anthropology and the faith experienced of through our Christian vocation.

Yet, within the realm of general human experience a basic fascination and even preoccupation with sex always comes to the fore-ground. And perhaps, in a very real sense this is most appropriate, for it is through the “gift” of human sexualaity that men and women most fundamentally incarnate their relational existence and give expression to dimension of one’s restless heart, which continually yearns for interpersonal commuion, glimpsed and experienced to varying degrees in this life, ultimately finding full oneness (“only”) in God.

 

[centurionguard]

NATURAL LAW:
The symbolic or sacramental consciousness of the early Church readily creation itself as an expression of the wisdom and creative power of God, of the Divine. The goodness, and harmony, and beauty of creation are but manifestations of the Good “which gives us in a inexpressible way: as a creative love”. The Book of Genesis shows God’s word mediating the divine plan into an external and recognizable form. Thus, the Psalmist sings out "The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims it’s builder’s craft. (Ps 19:2) It is God’s vision of creation and humanity that is mediated through God’s spoken Word to become the creative order. The beauty and harmony of creation are true reflections of the proper relational order intended by the Divine “Logos”. All that is good and meaninful in life faithfully corresponds written deep within the heart of all creative power (Wisdom 7:22; 8:1) this divine is written deep within the heart of all created reality. ((“Evil is that which de-creates, which is destructive of the proper relational order intended by God’s word.”))

Created in the (“image and likeness of God,” all human beings likewise have the capacity for sharing in the divine plan or vision ( which Jesus referred to as the “Kingdom of God”)
and for allowing it to find expression in our own unique and individual personhood.
Gifted with radical freedom, though, we can grasp for equality with God and eat of (“the Tree of Knowledge”) of good and evil," thereby forging our own limited plans independant of God’s will. Such hubris, however, is non relational, revealing the fearful alienation and shame roused by such naked independence (Gen 3:8-12) Because of the human race’s attempt to exercise its freedom in just this way, in the name of Adam and Eve we have become virtually incapable on our own of doing the Good, which our minds and hearts can still dimly see lying attractive as if behind a veil.

 

[centurionguard]

Saint John Chrysostom said that the (“Law of Nature”) "nomos physeos, as he called it, being general, eternal, and immortal. (“It is the moral teacher of the human race. God placed in man the inborn law, to serve as does the captain of a ship, or the charioteer over the horse. He points out its relational and social character when he refers to the natural moral commandments as neceessities which hold together our lives”)

Saint Augustine links the Greek concept af an immanent principle of order (logos), which was virtually mechanical, with the Christian beleif of a personal God creating through His eternal word, as found in the Johannine biblical text “Prologue”.

Nature itself is thus seen as dependable because it is the expression of God’s dependable will. The Eastern Fathers of the Church took the teaching of John’s Gospel in a mystical direction. Maximus the Confessor (“662 AD”) summarizes this Logos mysticism, which sees the logos in each being moving to completion under the power of the Logos, namely Jesus Christ.

This image or logos is to be actuated by a lifetime of knowledge and virtue that will continue to expand in the life to come hereafter. The (“unnatural”) “person” does not live according to her or his logos, but according to the principle of Alogos, the Evil One, whose principle is not self-sacrificing love, but rather self-love.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Natural law does not state that unnatural things are immoral.

For example, a medication that is man-made, not naturally occuring, may well be moral.

Natural law understands morality based on the nature and proper relations of created things.

So in the area of sexuality, for example, sexual union is naturally aimed at procreation. A medication that assists the married couple in achieving the sexual act might be moral. But a different medication, one that contracepts the procreative meaning of the act, would be immoral.

 

[centurionguard]

Natural Law, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, consist in certain fundamental moral judgments acquired intuitively and not by deductive reason. These self-evident principles of the moral order can be reduced to (“Good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided”)
(“ONLY” these first principles are absolutely universal"). Other general laws derived from these, may perhaps admit of exceptions because of accidental circumstances.

Saint Thomas made a distinction between Natural Law according to the “order of reason”
(“lex naturale”), that is, human reason providing guidance and direction for human affairs, and the natural law according to the “order of nature” (“ius naturale”), namely, those basic tendances and inclinations that human beings share in common with animals. His treatment of these two interpretations however; was not without ambiguity. after Saint Thomas, the rise of Nominialism introduced a strong voluntaristic trend that attributed natural law to the positive will of God. Later; the manualists trend reduced Natural Law to the given aspects of the “order of nature” and tended to downplay the role of reason.

 

[centurionguard]

Natural law does not state that unnatural things are immoral.

For example, a medication that is man-made, not naturally occuring, may well be moral.

Natural law understands morality based on the nature and proper relations of created things.

So in the area of sexuality, for example, sexual union is naturally aimed at procreation. A medication that assists the married couple in achieving the sexual act might be moral. But a different medication, one that contracepts the procreative meaning of the act, would be immoral.

So in the area of sexuality, for example, sexual union is naturally aimed at procreation. A medication that assists the married couple in achieving the sexual act might be moral. But a different medication, one that contracepts the procreative meaning of the act, would be immoral.

I agree with you on this point Ron.

Affective sexual behavior can be an end in itself or can be in service of part of genital behavior. for instance, a warm smile or a respectful caress can be ends in themselves, or they can lead to or be part of a genital encounter. thus, affective sexuality can stand on its own way of relating to another person, or it can be a prelude to genital activity. When affective and genital sexuality are seen as identical or when affective sexuality is seen as leading to genital sex, unnecessary confusion and guilt can emerge. Consequently; some individual might repress, unnecessarily suppress, or abuse affective sexuality,…a healthy mode of sexual encounter. Intention is the promary dynamic in determining whether affective sexuality is an end in itself or a means of genital behavior.

Genital sexuality refers to behavior, thoughts or fantasies, desires, and feelings that invive or encouragie genital behavior. A further distinction can appropriately be made between “genital behavior” and genitality. The former includes such explicit sexual acts as intercourse and masturbation, whereas the latter pertains to genital thoughts feels, and even such signs a genital erection and lubrication, that can, but not need be acutualized in personal or interpersonal genital bevior. Psychological Schools that accept a holistic view, maintain that genital sexuality in and of itself is an abstraction.

(" In Kraft Psychology: Genital sexuality is an articulation of a whole person. When we try to identify with genital sex, we treat ourselves as less than we really are because genitality is one important manifestation, not the totality of being man or woman. When we misuse or abuse genital sexuality, we misuse or abuse ourselves. and when we celebrate and realize genitality in a healthy way, we celebrate and actualize ourselves.")

The very processes of genitality, furthermore, point toward transcendent goals and values.
In genital relations between man and woman, the two people can go out to receive each other in ways that go beyond themselves.

 

[centurionguard]

In other words, the argument that “unnatural things are immoral” only applies to sexuality. That, of course, doesn’t make sense. If unnatural things are immoral, all unnatural things should be immoral: cars, tattoos, bicycles, shoes, LASIK, nail polish, body piercings, etc. Just saying, “oh hey, this rule actually only applies to sexuality” makes it a very weak argument.

Typical reasoning by the limited intellect by a secular humanists.
This takes much more than mere human reasoning and bold claims.

“oh hey, this rule actually only applies to sexuality” makes it a very weak argument

surely by this count you exaggerate yourself ?

 

[Exalt]

Typical reasoning by the limited intellect by a secular humanists.
This takes much more than mere human reasoning and bold claims.
surely by this count you exaggerate yourself ?

The argument made by Christians when it comes to sexual morality usually goes something like this:

Condoms are wrong because they are unnatural.

So, it obviously follows that “unnatural things are wrong.” Yet, our lives are almost entirely artificial. Yet, none of these countless unnatural things that envelop our every-day lives are considered wrong - and if they are considered wrong, it’s because of some other reason. For example, if scientists found a way to genetically engineer a tomato to be larger and tastier - but the tomato caused cancer - eating the tomato would be bad because it causes cancer, not because it’s unnatural.

But that’s just the beginning of the problems with Christian moral arguments from “naturalness.” I’ll sum up just a couple of the problems below:

• Natural phenomenon are obviously amoral when you actually look at the world: Animals killing one another to survive, animals killing members of it’s own species for all sorts of reasons that would be unacceptable in human society, natural disasters - the list goes on. It seems silly to try and model our behavior after the “natural” world.
• Typically, the whole “natural” argument is really just a misnomer for “What I think God wants for human beings because of what my Church told me or what the Bible told me, or both.” Indeed, it typically feels really dishonest. With many Christians, as soon as I start bringing up these obvious problems with arguments from “Natural Law” they immediately jump to the Bible or Catholic teaching, citing it as the basis for what is “natural” human behavior.

I mean, at least be honest with your reasoning here. The Christian position on sexual morality has nothing to do with what is natural or unnatural and has everything to do with the Bible or your Church’s teachings.

 

[centurionguard]

The argument made by Christians when it comes to sexual morality usually goes something like this:

Condoms are wrong because they are unnatural.

So, it obviously follows that “unnatural things are wrong.” Yet, our lives are almost entirely artificial. Yet, none of these countless unnatural things that envelop our every-day lives are considered wrong - and if they are considered wrong, it’s because of some other reason. For example, if scientists found a way to genetically engineer a tomato to be larger and tastier - but the tomato caused cancer - eating the tomato would be bad because it causes cancer, not because it’s unnatural.

But that’s just the beginning of the problems with Christian moral arguments from “naturalness.” I’ll sum up just a couple of the problems below:

• Natural phenomenon are obviously amoral when you actually look at the world: Animals killing one another to survive, animals killing members of it’s own species for all sorts of reasons that would be unacceptable in human society, natural disasters - the list goes on. It seems silly to try and model our behavior after the “natural” world.
• Typically, the whole “natural” argument is really just a misnomer for “What I think God wants for human beings because of what my Church told me or what the Bible told me, or both.” Indeed, it typically feels really dishonest. With many Christians, as soon as I start bringing up these obvious problems with arguments from “Natural Law” they immediately jump to the Bible or Catholic teaching, citing it as the basis for what is “natural” human behavior.

I mean, at least be honest with your reasoning here. The Christian position on sexual morality has nothing to do with what is natural or unnatural and has everything to do with the Bible or your Church’s teachings.

Condoms are wrong because they are unnatural.

“Protecting oneself against sickness or death is an act of prevention. Morally, it cannot be judged on the same level as when a condom is used to reduce the number of births.”

The Vatican has not budged. Condoms thwart conception; therefore, by the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae, their use is proscribed. End of debate. In a 2003 Vatican document titled Family Values Versus Safe Sex, the use of condoms in HIV-prevention programs was forcefully rejected:

Although it is true that condoms are not 100-percent effective in preventing HIV infection, they do reduce the risk of transmission significantly. Comparing condom use to a suicidal dare, as Cardinal Trujillo does, is scientifically inaccurate and socially irresponsible.

“The truth is not in condoms or clean needles. These are lies, lies perpetrated often for political reasons on the part of public officials…by some health care professionals who believe they have nothing else to offer persons with AIDS…lies told by often well-meaning counselors.”

“Parents must reject the promotion of so-called ‘safe sex’ or ‘safer sex,’ a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.”

“When priests preach against using contraception, they are committing a serious mistake which is costing human lives. We do not ask the church to promote contraception, but merely to stop banning its use.”

“Death control is the issue, not birth control. The African bishops should speak this truth not to save the soul of Catholicism, nor to redeem a generation of lost Catholics—although they would—but simply to save the lives of the people with whom they have been entrusted by God.”

“I challenge the Vatican to redefine its attitude to condoms. The current Roman Catholic theology is one that favors death rather than life.”

“The Catholic church … opposes contraception but most Catholics in the world use it, so the Catholic church is stuck and wrong on these questions. But lots and lots of Catholics ignore the Catholic church’s teaching, including lots of good priests and nuns who are in favor of condoms being made available.”

Claire Short, the UK’s minister for international development, speaking about the church being a “burden” in the effort against AIDS in Africa [Sue McGregor, “HIV/AIDS-Claire Short interview,” BBC News, July 17, 2000].

“The current Roman Catholic theology is one that favors death rather than life. [The Vatican’s] ‘better-dead-than-condomed’ position has not been blessed by any of the world’s religions or by common sense. It is flat-earth embarrassing.”

Theologian Daniel C. Maguire on the Vatican’s opposition to the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention programs “Vaticanology,” Religious Consultation Report, November 2000].

“The ‘changeless doctrine’ keeps coming back in many absurd ways. For instance, the danger of AIDS cannot be averted by using condoms…even by a married couple when one has AIDS… The condom is more evil than death by AIDS.”

.“If a husband violates his marital vows and sleeps with other women, he must make sure that he does not transmit the virus to his wife, else he would be violating the principle of justice. This is where the principle of ‘lesser evil’ comes in.”

American Jesuit theologian Fr. James Keenan, addressing a media forum in the Philippines “Catholic theologian endorses condom use to prevent transmission of HIV,” The Advocate, August 10, 2001].

“Many competent doctors state that a viable condom is today the sole means of prevention. In this respect, it is necessary. The condom is thus understandable for cases in which a person who already engages in sexual activity needs to avoid a serious risk, just as we insist that this is not a substitute for an adult sexual education.”

AIDS statement from the French Conference of Catholic Bishops “French Catholic Bishops Stray from Teaching on Condoms,” Catholic World Report, February 12, 1996].

“The use of a condom can be seen not as a means to prevent the ‘transmission of life’ leading to pregnancy, but rather as a means to prevent the ‘transmission of death’ to another.”

 

[centurionguard]

Posted by Exalt:

Natural phenomenon are obviously amoral when you actually look at the world: Animals killing one another to survive, animals killing members of it’s own species for all sorts of reasons that would be unacceptable in human society, natural disasters - the list goes on. It seems silly to try and model our behavior after the “natural” world.

• Typically, the whole “natural” argument is really just a misnomer for “What I think God wants for human beings because of what my Church told me or what the Bible told me, or both.” Indeed, it typically feels really dishonest. With many Christians, as soon as I start bringing up these obvious problems with arguments from “Natural Law” they immediately jump to the Bible or Catholic teaching, citing it as the basis for what is “natural” human behavior.

Well you have the liberty to dismiss Catholic Teaching and Biblical Scripture as you see fit.
As I see it you fit smack in the middle of idle speculation on morality as seen in the Catholic Church with 1000’s of years of history to back itself up. Who are you to tell God He is wrong on Sexual Ethics and behaviors of all humans in their arrogance ?

 

[Exalt]

Posted by Exalt:

Well you have the liberty to dismiss Catholic Teaching and Biblical Scripture as you see fit.
As I see it you fit smack in the middle of idle speculation on morality as seen in the Catholic Church with 1000’s of years of history to back itself up. Who are you to tell God He is wrong on Sexual Ethics and behaviors of all humans in their arrogance ?

You do realize that you just proved my point, right?

Besides I thought this thread was about how to address the issue of natural law with unbelievers. Trying to base an argument from the Bible is outside of the scope of this thread for that reason.

 

[centurionguard]

You do realize that you just proved my point, right?

Besides I thought this thread was about how to address the issue of natural law with unbelievers. Trying to base an argument from the Bible is outside of the scope of this thread for that reason.

I certainly don’t think the OP envisioned how this post is turning out.
I say this on respectful terms. I think even you can conclude that much.

Atheism does not present an easy target for disapprobation. A christian, to be called such, necessarily believes in a certain number of assumptions, scriptures and rules which constrain his behaviour and reasoning, even if only as simple as “God exists”. Most theists identify themselves with a religion, and therefore present an easily-refutable block of propositions or concepts.

“Atheism”, on the other hand, is a general term. Most atheists do not identify themselves with a particular ideology. Their only common attribute, then, is a lack of belief in gods. Little wonder that atheist groups are so dispersed. Regrouping on the basis of a religion is already a dicey proposition, let alone on a relatively insignificant position as a lack of belief in a particular concept.

Religious lobbies who need a straw man to pin on the atheist mostly use secular humanism for target practice. Its supposed immorality and general impiety makes it a suspect of everything that is wrong with society - some have even proposed that it is a conspiracy. As with anything with religion, however, this outlook is very limited.

Humanism is a general term that designates a gradient of ideologies. There is religious as well as secular humanism, but both share basic principles. Christian and religious humanism seek the fulfillment of man within a religious context. This human-oriented faith, of course, is not biblical - as religious doctrines demand divine obedience above all. As such, religious humanism is a feel-good, pick-and-choose vague idea of what religion should really be like, an ideology that supports human fulfillment.

Secular humanism, on the other hand, is based on the rejection of supernaturalism, and the adoption of science, democracy, and “human compassion” (Frederick Edwords, “What is humanism ?”). In the same way, it is a feel-good, pick-and-choose vague idea of what reality should be like.

Certainly there is a lot of merit in the basic idea of humanism. Human beings are not perfect, epistemically or otherwise, and we cannot rely on divine intervention or revelation to find knowledge. Therefore a rational, human-based approach to reality is desirable. In the same manner, focusing the validation of our actions on human reason and context rather than inhuman religious doctrine, and our society on the fulfillment of human life rather than submission to the clergy or religious principles, are good ideas.

Unfortunately, secular humanism only takes these ideas so far. Granted, it is a pretty vague ideology in the first place. However, what is established about it is enough to determine that it is not a proper basis for man’s life.

The Humanist Manifesto, despite being rather outdated, is still the most popular source of humanist beliefs. It proposes, for example, that “[w]e appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common” (religion, 1). That is a pretty odd proposition to make as a secular authority !

In the same vein, it denies the philosophical basis of ethics, rather saying that “[e]thics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction” (ethics, 3), which ultimately leads to an ethics disconnected from the human context (how are we to determine a proper ethical system without an epistemic basis ?). This is supported by other documents such as the Affirmation of Humanism, which reclaims altruism as its foundation.

The Manifesto also heavily suffers of scientism, in many places but first mentioned by : “[t]he controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems” (ethics, 4). This worship of science is a pretext to exclude any ideological propositions from humanist thought. Having rejected religion, they feel forced to reject any ideology, preferring to fall back on scientific inquiry. But science, by its very nature, cannot address such questions.

While humanists associate with self-determinism in religiously-monopolized issues, they do not do so in general. In fact they openly support democracy : “[w]e are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense” (Democratic society, 8). But as we know, democracy is the antithesis of reason : one does not find reality by vote. It would be odd indeed to see science, for example, being determined by popular support ! Yet obviously no humanist would stand for such a thing.

I could go on and on, but it would be irrelevant to do so. Suffice it to say that the Humanist Manifesto, the main document of humanism, shows clearly the flaws of secular humanism that is reflected in general humanist thought. The main source of these mistakes is the basic premise of humanism : to replace gods with another imaginary agent, “humanity”.

By this I do not mean that humanity is imaginary, but rather that “humanity” is not an agent, not any more than an imaginary entity “god” can be an agent in any system except one’s mind. “Humanity” does not act, and is not the recipient of any action, only individuals are. We forget this at the peril of sacrificing our individuality in the name of ethical scientism and collectivism.

Any system of thought which seeks to seeks to fulfill the requirements of abstract entities such as “god” or “humanity” inevitably, in practice, entails the sacrifice of man’s individuality and reason to the profit of those who “represent” those concepts. The religious “priest” is no different than the humanist’s “scientist” or “politician”. They all represent valences that stand between man and his ultimate fulfillment.

This deification of humanity may also be a reflection of the humanist’s search for purpose. Unfortunately, our search for universal purpose is a profoundly wrong one. Secular humanism is an easy straw-man for christians to attack : however, it does not stand to rational examination. The real enemy of religion is reason. To be justified, it must address the standards of reason, not humanism.

 

[LewisTheotokos]

This thread has gone beyond my intention.

Exalt, I think you misunderstand what is meant by natural law. It is natural in the sense that it is ‘organic’, like the church is some Whole foods market morality. It is natural in the sense that it is universally known to all. All cultures know that sexuality is valuable and sacred. Every culture treats marriage as sacred at its core. The natural law means simply morality that we can’t not know. Of course that doesn’t mean we can’t lie to ourselves about it.

My root question is how do we distinguish something that is unhealthy from immoral. As I ask the question the hint of the answer seems to come out. In sexuality we affect not just ourselves but our relation with others. I wonder if that is the distinction to make.