Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Lucy107]

Huh? Who’s using contraceptives?

NFP is still a form of contraception. The intention for using it is the same as for using condoms or BCP or any other form of contraceptives.

---

It’s a privilege to live given to us by God.

People protect this privilege. That’s the most fundamental inclination of the Natural law.

Our life is our ‘talent’, we are supposed to use it, and bring some ‘return on investment’ with us when we come back to God after our life here on Earth.
I hope you know the parable from Mathew 25.

It appears strange that you even argue this point. Does it mean that a life has no value to you?
Think about the consequences of what you are saying!

I suppose that if one was raised with the belief that God loves us all, then what you’re saying above applies.

But in a worldview according to which God doesn’t exist or is choosy about whom he loves, what you’re saying above doesn’t apply.
Many, if not most people, were taught that God doesn’t exist, or were taught, directly or by implication, that God is choosy about whom he loves. So this is a perspective one is likely to encounter.

And even the staunchest atheist, if she is being consistent, has to admit that living life simply for the purposes of eating, sleeping, sex, fighting with others, altruism, enjoying art, and such, is ultimately doomed to failure and disappointment, as death of the body nullifies all those efforts.

 

[Lucy107]

no it is not. Such a thought process (in the context of a married couple) is natural, reasonable and moral.

Is this the official view of the Catholic Church?
Are you in any formal position of power in the Catholic Church?

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

I suppose that if one was raised with the belief that God loves us all, then what you’re saying above applies.

But in a worldview according to which God doesn’t exist or is choosy about whom he loves, what you’re saying above doesn’t apply.
Many, if not most people, were taught that God doesn’t exist, or were taught, directly or by implication, that God is choosy about whom he loves. So this is a perspective one is likely to encounter.

And even the staunchest atheist, if she is being consistent, has to admit that living life simply for the purposes of eating, sleeping, sex, fighting with others, altruism, enjoying art, and such, is ultimately doomed to failure and disappointment, as death of the body nullifies all those efforts.

Then the question would be why those people do not choose to die right away.
They choose to live whatever life they have. The Natural law says the existence/life is the most fundamental inclination.
Most people follow it regardless of their religion.

 

[Lucy107]

Then the question would be why those people do not choose to die right away.

It could be this is because dying usually requires some action, and this action is usually more difficult than the pursuit of eating, sleeping, sex, etc.

They choose to live whatever life they have.

It’s not clear that they choose so.
A true decision-making situation would be if one would be in some kind of intermediate or neutral state, neither alive nor dead, and then in that state one would decide whether to live or to die. But since the default is to be alive, such decision-making does not apply.

The Natural law says the existence/life is the most fundamental inclination.
Most people follow it regardless of their religion.

And from another perspective, this is just one interpretation of what is going on.
I think we could reasonably talk about “following that most fundamental inclination” only if people would actually choose to do so; but as it stands, many simply seem to go along with it out of habit, without thinking about it much or at all, life being simply “something that happens to them” and is stronger than they.

 

[davidv]

NFP is still a form of contraception. The intention for using it is the same as for using condoms or BCP or any other form of contraceptives.

---

Only if the meaning of contraception is equivocated.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

I suppose that if one was raised with the belief that God loves us all, then what you’re saying above applies.

But in a worldview according to which God doesn’t exist or is choosy about whom he loves, what you’re saying above doesn’t apply.
Many, if not most people, were taught that God doesn’t exist, or were taught, directly or by implication, that God is choosy about whom he loves. So this is a perspective one is likely to encounter.

And even the staunchest atheist, if she is being consistent, has to admit that living life simply for the purposes of eating, sleeping, sex, fighting with others, altruism, enjoying art, and such, is ultimately doomed to failure and disappointment, as death of the body nullifies all those efforts.

If natural law is as it is claimed to be, it is an objective reality that is independent of child rearing conditions and world views. Therefore it applies to everyone in all times.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s a privilege to live given to us by God.
People protect this privilege. That’s the most fundamental inclination of the Natural law.

Our life is our ‘talent’, we are supposed to use it, and bring some ‘return on investment’ with us when we come back to God after our life here on Earth.
I hope you know the parable from Mathew 25.

It appears strange that you even argue this point. Does it mean that a life has no value to you?
Think about the consequences of what you are saying!

That was my point about “survival.” You claimed “survival” per se was the telos or end for human activity. I observed that survival cannot be because survival does not address the question of what it means to survive. It isn’t mere survival simpliciter that is the telos, it is “survival” meaning with all the attendant qualities that give life meaning and significance. It is those qualities, then, that make up the telos; not mere survival.

 

[Lucy107]

Only if the meaning of contraception is equivocated.

How could it not be? People who use any form of contraception, inluding NFP, do it with the intention that they could engage in sex and yet not conceive.
It is the quality of the intention that makes the difference:

In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.

is describing in the abstract an ideal situation that, in my opinion, in reality does not occur.

Perhaps if a couple uses NFP “because the Church told them to do so”, that could on principle constitute that ideal situation, but it’s doubtful that this is why people use it.

If natural law is as it is claimed to be, it is an objective reality that is independent of child rearing conditions and world views. Therefore it applies to everyone in all times.

Humans are not deterministic biological machines, though. If the striving for living would be automatically present in all, people could not commit suicide.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Say, OP, remind me: exactly HOW do we get babies?

The answer to that question should just about end this thread.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "…basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. **They are contrary to the natural law… **–(sections 2357-8).

The Church teaches that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law. Sooooo the premise of this thread is false.

Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial. If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say (in our pluralistic context), “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others."

However, the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and natural law is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

It is true that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law. Moral relativists deny the existence of truth and that is why we have threads like this one.

If we acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if one denies that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How could it not be? People who use any form of contraception, inluding NFP, do it with the intention that they could engage in sex and yet not conceive.
It is the quality of the intention that makes the difference:

is describing in the abstract an ideal situation that, in my opinion, in reality does not occur.

Perhaps if a couple uses NFP “because the Church told them to do so”, that could on principle constitute that ideal situation, but it’s doubtful that this is why people use it.

Humans are not deterministic biological machines, though. If the striving for living would be automatically present in all, people could not commit suicide.

My wife and I don’t act in any way so as to “render procreation impossible”, as evidenced by the five children we have. I fail to understand why you seem to think we are sinning, by using NFP.

 

[Lucy107]

My wife and I don’t act in any way so as to “render procreation impossible”, as evidenced by the five children we have. I fail to understand why you seem to think we are sinning, by using NFP.

Why do you use NFP?

 

[Jaaanosik]

It could be this is because dying usually requires some action, and this action is usually more difficult than the pursuit of eating, sleeping, sex, etc.

It’s not clear that they choose so.
A true decision-making situation would be if one would be in some kind of intermediate or neutral state, neither alive nor dead, and then in that state one would decide whether to live or to die. But since the default is to be alive, such decision-making does not apply.

And from another perspective, this is just one interpretation of what is going on.
I think we could reasonably talk about “following that most fundamental inclination” only if people would actually choose to do so; but as it stands, many simply seem to go along with it out of habit, without thinking about it much or at all, life being simply “something that happens to them” and is stronger than they.

Lucy, Peter, please stop.
Billions of the people spend long hours working hard so they can put some food on the table, to have a roof above their head, to stay warm.
Why do they do it? What is the motivation? What is the goal?
Self-preservation!
You are talking nonsense!
You are going against billions of people who choose to act in such a way so they can live.
Unless you are rich you do the same thing, so please stop.

 

[Lucy107]

Lucy, Peter, please stop.

Heh.

Billions of the people spend long hours working hard so they can put some food on the table, to have a roof above their head, to stay warm.
Why do they do it? What is the motivation? What is the goal?
Self-preservation!
You are talking nonsense!
You are going against billions of people who choose to act in such a way so they can live.
Unless you are rich you do the same thing, so please stop.

Working in order to be able to buy food and a roof over one’s head etc. is not self-preservation, it is acting in line with and preservation of certain material desires.

What you are saying would hold only if the body would be the totality of the self, and the self the totality of the body; if the two would be identical.

 

[Jaaanosik]

My wife and I don’t act in any way so as to “render procreation impossible”, as evidenced by the five children we have. I fail to understand why you seem to think we are sinning, by using NFP.

The Church’s teaching stands on the theology of body - in other words the total gift of self to the other partner.
A couple practicing NFP in order to ‘space’ children does not want to conceive.
Their prayer is: “I want you give myself in the whole fulness but I hope my wife does not give me her ovum/I hope I don’t give him my ovum.”

This is not healthy. This is what I call schizophrenic.
When the couple realizes this and it drives them nuts then the self-preservation kicks in and the NFP is dropped.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Heh.

Working in order to be able to buy food and a roof over one’s head etc. is not self-preservation, it is acting in line with and preservation of certain material desires.

What you are saying would hold only if the body would be the totality of the self, and the self the totality of the body; if the two would be identical.

Do you work? Why?

 

[Rau]

Is this the official view of the Catholic Church?
Are you in any formal position of power in the Catholic Church?

Are you? If you have any contradictory Church teaching, please offer it.

 

[edwest2]

Why would “feeling good” be a plausibly sufficient end for any behaviour or action?

Why, then, wouldn’t hooking human beings up to feeding tubes and mind altering drugs be a reasonable alternative to living a life of drudgery and toil?

Isn’t forming good moral agents a higher end than mere pleasure satisfaction? And where pleasure satisfaction detracts from or negates sound moral formation, it loses value as a “good” or desired end.

Well said.

Ed

 

[Lucy107]

Are you? If you have any contradictory Church teaching, please offer it.

It’s because of people who hold views like you that I don’t feel comfortable to associate with Catholics who hold the same view (although not all do), much less with people of most other religious denominations.

As I am not baptized, I am technically at the mercy of Catholics, which, when they hold views like you do, fills me with despair, and my prospects for obtaining a formal baptism diminish.

 

[Lucy107]

Do you work? Why?

Not for “survival.” At some point, I couldn’t work anymore, at least not as I had done that far, because working (or doing anything else) merely for the pursuit of food, shelter etc. struck me as an empty and worthless pursuit that might as well be omitted. I took to investigating religion precisely because I was looking for a good reason for working.

 

[ChainBreaker]

The problem is that this argument focuses on the external design of the body while ignoring the internal design. Although we don’t fully understand the causes of homosexuality at this time, it has become increasingly clear that some people are simply designed to have same-sex attraction. If so, then God was the designer.

Now why would God design some people for opposite-sex relationships in their exterior body but same-sex relationships in their interior life? I have no idea. But it doesn’t really matter. If God designed it that way, then who am I to judge?

If sexual organs did not exist, then the call to sexual activity would be meaningless since it would serve no purpose as a function. Sexuality, the call to procreation, can be used for pleasure, but it exists primarily for procreation and that is precisely why sexual attraction exists in the first place. That’s why gender exists; that’s why sexual attraction exists. That’s what it means to have sexuality. If there is disunity between ones attraction and gender identity then that is precisely what it is - a disunity in ones sexual nature.

It does not serve my nature or dignity as a man to have sexual relations with another man, and neither does it reflect my dignity as a man to be attracted to another man. Its an impediment.

However the call to procreation can be so strong some have been fooled into thinking there is nothing wrong and their attraction is normal.

In the end its about what you value. Do you value your gender identity? What meaning does it have for you?

God does not create disunity, but nature and sin does.

 

[davidv]

It’s because of people who hold views like you that I don’t feel comfortable to associate with Catholics who hold the same view (although not all do), much less with people of most other religious denominations.

As I am not baptized, I am technically at the mercy of Catholics, which, when they hold views like you do, fills me with despair, and my prospects for obtaining a formal baptism diminish.

Stop blaming others for you woes. You are responsible for your choices. Those who choose to do unnature sexual acts do so freely, therefore the must accept the natural consequences of those acts. One of those consequences is separation from God, either partially or completely. Permanent separation from God will lead to eternal unhappiness.