Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[casslean]

The point is you’re going to have to show that there’s something actually wrong about gay relationships. And you can’t use the “their parts don’t fit” Natural Law response because, as I’ve explained, their parts do fit on the inside. And for all we know God made them that way on purpose.

I think the missing element here is to first look at, what is the purpose of “conjugal love”? It is for procreation. The fact that it is pleasurable is merely an evolutionary construct to ensure the survival of the species. If procreating was painful or uncomfortable, we’d be less likely to engage in it and thus pass on our genetic material to the next generation.

Same sex relationships cannot contribute to the survival of the species. If homosexuality actually was hereditary, we would expect it to die out simply because homosexuals in a homosexual relationship cannot naturally reproduce. Further, although it is not necessarily directly harmful to another person in the way pedophilia is, it is harmful to the species as a whole because it removes that genetic material from the gene pool.

 

[DavidGonzalez]

Well, here is another one for you. I’m a man married to a woman (pardon the explanation), I would love to have an affair with a whole bunch of other women, but I’ll be damn if I do it. First, my wife would kill me, then it is prohibited by God. Is God discriminating me or should I do what He asks of me???

Ok but do you see how you’re missing the point? Are you suggesting that God designed you to commit adultery on your wife and you can therefore justify it on a Natural Law basis according to my logic?

Well even if he did design you to be uncontrollably promiscuous, the fact remains that adultery would still be wrong for other reasons. The harm done to your wife, for example…

You have yet to explain the harm caused by being in a commited and loving gay relationship when you’re designed for that on the inside.

 

[tamedlion]

I don’t believe that people “choose” to be attracted to the same sex, either.

O.k. But this isn’t a question for the government. It’s a question about the Church.

You and me, both.
(On the other hand, I’m working out a new sociological paradigm that would make it work. Give me a few more years to get the bugs worked out.)

I’m not saying God is wrong. What I’m saying is *we *ought to keep other people’s bedroom doors closed.

Sociologically you can change whatever you want, every generation has tried it, after all we have free will, but God’s precepts will stand until the end of time and the church will never change them. It’s a promise by Christ.

 

[tamedlion]

Ok but do you see how you’re missing the point? Are you suggesting that God designed you to commit adultery on your wife and you can therefore justify it on a Natural Law basis according to my logic?

Well even if he did design you to be uncontrollably promiscuous, the fact remains that adultery would still be wrong for other reasons. The harm done to your wife, for example…

You have yet to explain the harm caused by being in a commited and loving gay relationship when you’re designed for that on the inside.

Simple, you’re harming your soul and the one that you are acting with!

 

[Rau]

Anyway I can’t respond to all of your comments but maybe just a few…

How did post #16 sit with you?

In your Jesuit ministry, how do you seek to encourage the people you’re working with to live chastely?

 

[Debbie_Keefe]

The harm that is done in a same sex relationship is they are not open to new life ( and they know that) so the act is selfish. God requires a selfless act, open to new life. Studies have shown that children raised with a mom and a dad are more stable.

 

[Rau]

Ok but do you see how you’re missing the point? Are you suggesting that God designed you to commit adultery on your wife and you can therefore justify it on a Natural Law basis according to my logic?

Well even if he did design you to be uncontrollably promiscuous, the fact remains that adultery would still be wrong for other reasons. The harm done to your wife, for example…

You have yet to explain the harm caused by being in a commited and loving gay relationship when you’re designed for that on the inside.

Your natural law argument (as you called it) was severely flawed,

God did not design humans to be blind, to have no arms or to be born in a vegetative state or to have autism. But all these things happen.

 

[Elizium23]

Hey guys. It’s me again. Thanks for all the comments. I’m not actually gay but I’m involved in a Jesuit ministry that reaches out to gay Catholics who have felt alienated by the Church. Many of them have wrestled with the Church’s teaching for years only to fall into depression and abandon the Church. The ones who come back tend to re-embrace the faith while respecting their own conscious on gay relationships.

What is the name of this Jesuit ministry? Does it adhere to the teachings of the Church like Courage does, or does it promote dissent like DignityUSA and New Ways Ministry?

 

[Boreas]

I’m not an expert on natural law, but I think we can draw some conclusions here to help with the progression of this discussion. Pithy remarks and witticisms are all fun, but this is a legitimate issue that should have some concrete and objective waypoints along the way. We need to recognize that we are dealing with human persons (created by God) and this is a real issue. Those with SSA need legitimate dialogue, encouragement, and prayers.

We all have our crosses to bear. It isn’t about fairness as to who gets what cross. We just have these crosses. We can either bear them up, or let them drop. The only thing unfair is to not be willing to bear our crosses for the love of Jesus Christ.

All that being said, let’s talk about what Natural Law is. For much of this I am going to use NewAdvent as a source. Thomas Aquinas says that Natural Law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.” (I-II, 94.) Well, what then is Eternal Law? NewAdvent goes on to say that the Eternal Law is God’s wisdom. I don’t think any of us will deny that there is a definitive created order to the cosmo. On the physical plane, we have seasons, physical laws/theories, cycles of law and death, laws of harmony—order. There is an order to our lives as we exist in Time. On the metaphysical plane, we know there to be an order to morality, ethics, theology, philosophy, etc. All things are signifiers of something else.

All things point towards a certain end. If things are created, they are created for a purpose. Sometimes they are created for the sole purpose of being loved. Sometimes they have an actual, utilitarian purpose. Hammers, beds, chairs, cars are created for a useful purpose. But what about man? What is man created for? Well, God intended man for love. Thus, the justification of many to say that SSA is justified by a shared love between a man and a man. There is no question that there can be a legitimate love between two people of the same sex. As Aquinas says, “Love is willing the good for another.” Will you deny the ability of a man to will the good for another man? Absolutely not. However, the question to ask is, is this love between those of SSA the true and complete form of Love? That is wherein the difficulty lies.

God created man for love. God loves man, and desires the love of man. What is the truest form of love? The complete giving of self, body and spirit, to another. Christ gave His spirit and His body for man. Every time we approach the sanctuary, we take Christ into ourselves and are united. One of the tenets of marriage is the willingness and desire to procreate and have children. Why is this? It is the procreative act that we are acting most similiarly to God. Husband and Wife become One to procreate. All of creation came from a Single Being (Albeit 3 persons in one God). It is the highest form of Love to become One, and to issue forth new life.

I’ll try to bring this back to Natural Law. As Aquinas said, it is the rational being partaking in the eternal law. Eternal Law is the wisdom of God; God created and so ordained the cosmos in an objective order. Man participates in that order with his reason (Reason is used for the discernment of truth, and thus, a discovery of that order). Man exists to love God, and so must direct all of his conscious actions towards loving the Creator. In order to love the Creator to the height of possibility, he must give himself body and soul to another. Through this union, the Creator is loved and honored and so new life comes into the world.

I think what I am describing is the usual case–and this is taking into consideration that all biological specifications are met (discounting barreness, sterility, age, etc.). This is also not considering the Priesthood, which is altogether a different situation. Man was meant for physical union, and the only way this is not to be the case is with the aid of Grace.

Can a homosexual couple come together and procreate? No, they cannot. This doesn’t discount the veracity of their love, but it prohibits the fulfillment of the love. Man was designed for woman for the giving of self, not just for the emotional attachment and willfull love for another. The consequence is just as important as the feeling. Both are necessary.

 

[ssa_fellow]

The Church’s position on this subject is over 2000 years old. It ain’t gonna change.

Currently the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) says that the rate of newly reported cases of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) within the gay communities are at EPIDEMIC levels.

That problem is far from spiritual. I hate to break it to you this way but…you are in physical DANGER. Wise up!

The Church does not make an argument. It teaches the truth.

I’m not in physical danger. I’m a virgin. I follow Church teaching.

Thanks for the personal attack, which was fallacious though… :nope:

I just find the Church’s teaching very difficult to actually explain to people. And you seem to be saying that it rests on the assertion that people are not born gay. Well… I’m just telling you, that sooner or later we’re probably going to know a lot more about that.

 

[ssa_fellow]

Do you see a logic, a purpose beyond mutual pleasure, in engaging in sexual relations with another man? Does my earlier post give you cause to ask yourself “does this [sex with another man] seem right”?

I can think of no logical reason to have sex with another men, other than that I don’t want to be alone my whole life. I’ve been talking to priests about this for a while. And, quite frankly, if you read any of my threads… all I’m doing is trying to find a community to go to.

I want the Church to have an answer for people like me. I don’t want to live alone.
“It is bad for man to be alone”.

I’m really hoping that somehow I can live and have peace, and not be miserable and suffering from depression bc I’m gay. But… how long should I wait?

So, logically, if I wanted to be a functioning person, who wasn’t miserable, and utterly depressed… then I might start dating men. For the first time in my life.

I’m 22, almost 23. I’m not going to be miserable my whole life. I’m really hoping and praying that God can make lifelong chastity seem a little more appealing, and a little less depressing to me. I want to follow the Church’s teaching, but so far, I’ve followed the Church’s teaching… and I have depression, I’ve dropped out of school, and I live with other people to survive. I don’t belong where I am, bc I can’t even support myself.

I don’t want to support myself, bc I don’t want to be alone for my whole life.

A Catholic community could change this. A relationship could change this, as well, though. …

 

[Rau]

… And you seem to be saying that it rests on the assertion that people are not born gay. Well… I’m just telling you, that sooner or later we’re probably going to know a lot more about that.

Whether circumstances at ones birth have a bearing on SSA is unknown, but it’s reasonable to assume this uncertainty might be reduced with time.

But the morality of same sex acts won’t be influenced one way or the other. The participants in those acts, despite their desires, can reason, they can see the dissonance, the disorder in their acts.

 

[casslean]

I’m 22, almost 23. I’m not going to be miserable my whole life. I’m really hoping and praying that God can make lifelong chastity seem a little more appealing, and a little less depressing to me. I want to follow the Church’s teaching, but so far, I’ve followed the Church’s teaching… and I have depression, I’ve dropped out of school, and I live with other people to survive. I don’t belong where I am, bc I can’t even support myself.

I don’t want to support myself, bc I don’t want to be alone for my whole life.

A Catholic community could change this. A relationship could change this, as well, though. …

I’m 31 and have never been in a relationship. I live according to the Church’s teachings regarding chastity because I think, and have always thought that the Church is right. It isn’t affecting my ability to live my life. I live alone, but I am not alone. I am active in my Church and my community. I have several degrees. I have a career. I don’t bemoan the fact that I am not in a relationship and have no meaningful prospects. I just go on about my life and find other ways to use my energies. My relationship with God is stronger than ever because I can focus on it - my attention is not split.

If you think a relationship is going to fix your problems, you are sadly misguided. A relationship is not a panacea. It is a calling, and one which comes with its own challenges and struggles.

My priest said something really profound tonight which I think applies here, as you talk about the “challenge” of lifelong chastity. He said that faith is not about a bunch of rules you keep in your head - I should do this, I shouldn’t do that. It is about love. Because when you truly commit yourself to loving someone - including God - you do not want to do anything that you know would offend them.

 

[Rau]

I can think of no logical reason to have sex with another men, other than that I don’t want to be alone my whole life. I’ve been talking to priests about this for a while. And, quite frankly, if you read any of my threads… all I’m doing is trying to find a community to go to.

I want the Church to have an answer for people like me. I don’t want to live alone.
“It is bad for man to be alone”.

I’m really hoping that somehow I can live and have peace, and not be miserable and suffering from depression bc I’m gay. But… how long should I wait?

So, logically, if I wanted to be a functioning person, who wasn’t miserable, and utterly depressed… then I might start dating men. For the first time in my life.

I’m 22, almost 23. I’m not going to be miserable my whole life. I’m really hoping and praying that God can make lifelong chastity seem a little more appealing, and a little less depressing to me. I want to follow the Church’s teaching, but so far, I’ve followed the Church’s teaching… and I have depression, I’ve dropped out of school, and I live with other people to survive. I don’t belong where I am, bc I can’t even support myself.

I don’t want to support myself, bc I don’t want to be alone for my whole life.

A Catholic community could change this. A relationship could change this, as well, though. …

It is unfortunate that close friendships these days are so often presumed to include a sexual relationship - almost as if it were obligatory. If I understand you, you wish to do what is right. You are the only such person.

Have you been in contact with the Courage organisation?

 

[ssa_fellow]

It is unfortunate that close friendships these days are so often presumed to include a sexual relationship - almost as if it were obligatory. If I understand you, you wish to do what is right. You are the only such person.

Have you been in contact with the Courage organisation?

Courage sadly doesn’t have a chapter near me. I’ve heard they’re trying to organize one soon though. I’ve even considered driving 2 or 3 hours both ways to visit the nearest Courage chapter…

Yes, I still desire to do what is right. But, it is a bad feeling to feel your faith slipping. I feel like through my suffering, I’m going the wrong direction. That I’m not getting stronger, but weaker.

I’m going to talk to my priest on Wednesday, I think. Please pray for me.

 

[Hans_W]

Hey guys. It’s me again. Thanks for all the comments. I’m not actually gay but I’m involved in a Jesuit ministry that reaches out to gay Catholics who have felt alienated by the Church. Many of them have wrestled with the Church’s teaching for years only to fall into depression and abandon the Church. The ones who come back tend to re-embrace the faith while respecting their own conscious on gay relationships.

The problem seems to boil down to the question: Are some people born homosexuals or is it a conscious choice to be homosexual.

I am convinced that some people are born that way. Their hormones are mixed up and there is nothing they can do about it. One hears lots of stories of teenagers slowly or suddenly finding out that they are not attracted to the other sex. Some are so desperate that they commit suicide.

You must have seen plenty of people telling you their story. What is your experience? Are there at least some who are simply born that way?

 

[DavidGonzalez]

Your natural law argument (as you called it) was severely flawed,

God did not design humans to be blind, to have no arms or to be born in a vegetative state or to have autism. But all these things happen.

Look I’m not going to bother posting anything more because most people are making objections that ignore what I’ve already said.

If you want to say that blindness, being born with no arms, and being born in a vegetative state are somehow comparable to being born with same-sex attraction, then you have to explain the similarity. Quite frankly, I don’t think there is one.

You might say that none of those things are willed by God, but then you’re just assuming your conclusion on same-sex attraction from the outset. You might say that all of them are harmful, but in what way is same-sex attraction harmful? You might say that it’s harmful because it opposes God’s design for human sexuality, but that’s precisely what’s in question. You might say that it’s wrong because it puts your soul in jeopardy, but again you’d be assuming your conclusion from the outset.

The question I’ve been asking from the beginning is whether same sex relationships are compatible with God’s design and therefore in tune with the Natural Law. The more we learn about same-sex attraction, the more reason we have to believe that some people are simply designed that way. And same-sex relationships, if they are consensual, loving, and committed aren’t harmful in the way that blindness is harmful, or being born with no arms, or being born in a vegetative state, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or incest, or whatever silly examples people might bring up.

The Jesuit ministry I’m involved with is more of an inclusive environment than a teaching ministry. We’re there to support gay Catholics who have been away from the Church for a long time but are finally deciding to come back. Many have left the Church because of hurtful comments not unlike those that have been expressed in this thread. We don’t bring up difficult issues like same sex marriage. All we do is provide a safe environment where they can celebrate the Sacraments and get comfortable in their faith again. If we were to pound them over the head with the Catechism as soon as they walk through the door like some of you seem to want to do, then they would never come back to the Church in the first place. We’re just trying to give them some breathing room where they can heal their relationship with the Church.

Now after some time has gone by, if they feel more comfortable in the Church and want to talk about these issues, then we refer them to a qualified spiritual director. I don’t handle this myself. I’m just there to support them and to make them feel welcome and to clean up the mess left behind by insensitive Catholics.

Sorry but I’m not replying to anything else. I think I’ve said enough…

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the “sex is for procreation” argument. Maybe I’m thick, but there seem to be some holes. Even if a couple is “open to life”, a child is not guaranteed or even universally the goal, yes? Otherwise we’d have litters of offspring! If procreation is the only or primary objective, why aren’t Catholic women constantly pregnant? Why are sterile couples allowed to mate (and you can talk about God’s miracles for infertile couples, but why stop there? If God can impregnate a virgin he could impregnate a gay lesbian couple too if he wanted, right?). You would think if the only “fruit” God cares about is wee ones, healthy women would be fertile 100% of the time, and would successfully conceive after each sexual encounter. You would think orgasm would be linked to successful fertilization in some way, but it’s not (for women). All those fringe benefits - intimacy, pleasure, bonding, ecstatic union, love - are those really just extras? Or have we oversimplified our understanding of the purpose of sex? What if “to be fruitful” includes but is not limited to procreation, and also includes those other things I’ve mentioned?

And if sex is not exclusively about procreation, then the Natural Law argument very quickly loses steam, in my view.

 

[Hans_W]

I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the “sex is for procreation” argument. Maybe I’m thick, but there seem to be some holes. Even if a couple is “open to life”, a child is not guaranteed or even universally the goal, yes? Otherwise we’d have litters of offspring! If procreation is the only or primary objective, why aren’t Catholic women constantly pregnant? Why are sterile couples allowed to mate (and you can talk about God’s miracles for infertile couples, but why stop there? If God can impregnate a virgin he could impregnate a gay lesbian couple too if he wanted, right?). You would think if the only “fruit” God cares about is wee ones, healthy women would be fertile 100% of the time, and would successfully conceive after each sexual encounter. You would think orgasm would be linked to successful fertilization in some way, but it’s not (for women). All those fringe benefits - intimacy, pleasure, bonding, ecstatic union, love - are those really just extras? Or have we oversimplified our understanding of the purpose of sex? What if “to be fruitful” includes but is not limited to procreation, and also includes those other things I’ve mentioned?

And if sex is not exclusively about procreation, then the Natural Law argument very quickly loses steam, in my view.

Yes, and there is meaningfulness in a relationship where one or both are past their reproductive age.

 

[Rau]

It is unfortunate that close friendships these days are so often presumed to include a sexual relationship - almost as if it were obligatory. If I understand you, you wish to do what is right. You are the only such person.

Have you been in contact with the Courage organisation?

Oops - Of course I meant you are NOT the only such person!