Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Prodigal_Son]

The intrinsic purpose, as you call it, does not have to be present! That’s what the Church teaches.

You are assuming that a purpose must be held consciously in the mind. That is not how Catholic theology works. The male and female person, when they meet in sexual lovemaking, have a purpose – whether or not they have babies “in mind”. The end of an act need not be its subjective motivation.

 

[LisaA]

You are going against the Church’s teaching.
The Church does not teach that a married couple is supposed to have sex only when they want to reproduce. That’s not the case.
The Church teaches that the marital act has to be done in a specific way but the intention to have baby does not have to be there.
The intention to have a baby/reproduce is decoupled from the marital act.
The intrinsic purpose, as you call it, does not have to be present! That’s what the Church teaches.

Do you know the definition of an intrinsically disordered act?

Not to speak for Peter Plato who does a masterful job in responding to these posts, I think you have read something into the post that was not there. The Marital Embrace has two elements, unitive and procreative. Even if the couple doesn’t conceive, there is the unitive component in their sexual relations.

The couple need only to be OPEN to new life, they don’t limit their sexual activity to the times they are trying to conceive. No one said that. Where are you coming up with these conclusions? He even noted that in the case of a couple who is no longer fertile, that they remain open to the (very remote if any) possibility of conception, that the couple is not committing a sin.

Take another look at the posts. I think your conclusions are not reflective of what was written.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You are assuming that a purpose must be held consciously in the mind. That is not how Catholic theology works. The male and female person, when they meet in sexual lovemaking, have a purpose – whether or not they have babies “in mind”. The end of an act need not be its subjective motivation.

Every act can only be done by acting agent(s).
The act has a moral object, intentions, circumstances, consequences, …
These can not be separated.

Show me an act that can be morally judged without an agent.
Show me an act that can be morally judged and it does not have a moral object.
Show me an act that can be morally judged and it does not have intention(s).
Show me an act that can be morally judged and it is done in vacuum without any circumstances.
…

This is very fundamental logic that can not be denied.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Not to speak for Peter Plato who does a masterful job in responding to these posts, I think you have read something into the post that was not there. The Marital Embrace has two elements, unitive and procreative. Even if the couple doesn’t conceive, there is the unitive component in their sexual relations.

The couple need only to be OPEN to new life, they don’t limit their sexual activity to the times they are trying to conceive. No one said that. Where are you coming up with these conclusions? He even noted that in the case of a couple who is no longer fertile, that they remain open to the (very remote if any) possibility of conception, that the couple is not committing a sin.

Take another look at the posts. I think your conclusions are not reflective of what was written.

Well, that’s how I understood this:
“Sex is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction. That is, in the very nature of the act and the parts involved, the clearly designed end for both is to replicate combined genetic material into a new human being. That is what the act is ordered to bringing about as an intrinsic aspect of why the sex act is engaged in using the appropriate parts.”
… and you are right. Your post is correct about “being open to new life” and the Church’s teaching.

Having said that the issue is that the Church puts spotlight on the specific way to have sex in this case. The procreation as to have a baby is …, well secondary.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are going against the Church’s teaching.
The Church does not teach that a married couple is supposed to have sex only when they want to reproduce. That’s not the case.
The Church teaches that the marital act has to be done in a specific way but the intention to have baby does not have to be there.
The intention to have a baby/reproduce is decoupled from the marital act.
The intrinsic purpose, as you call it, does not have to be present! That’s what the Church teaches.

A married couple is supposed to be a unity essentially ordered towards loving each other in a manner that includes mind, body and soul. The inevitable end of that unity is to promote the creation, nurturing and formation of new life. That end is essentially the reason for their unity - to incarnate their love in new human beings.

Keep in mind that the well-being of those new human beings is just as paramount as the creation of them. A married couple ought not create children without regard to how they will nurture and care for their well-being. That is important to the overall goal. On the other hand, simply treating sex as entertainment or a source of pleasure does not show due concern for the gift of what sex intrinsically is about. It is a gift of one human being to another - mind, body and soul - an important aspect of that gift is its potential to create new life which shouldn’t be forgotten, but neither must it be the direct intention. The intention is unity, but unity purposed towards creating and nurturing new life and sustaining the well-being of that life.

Do you know the definition of an intrinsically disordered act?

I am not clear that intrinsically disordered is a coherent idea, but I am open to trying to make sense of it.

The reason it doesn’t appear coherent is that order depends upon the intrinsic structure or designed purpose of a thing. Disorder is not necessarily or logically dependent upon anything intrinsic to a thing in the way that order is necessarily tied.

Tuning a car is done, for example, with regard to the intrinsic workings of the engine parts. How is it possible to intrinsically disorder that working? The disorder wouldn’t be intrinsic to the engine in any respect. There are many ways to add disorder to the working of the engine that have nothing to do with its intrinsic function. Sugar in the gasoline, sledge hammer to it’s more delicate parts, letting the oil dry up, etc., etc., The factors that create disorder would be many, varied and not necessarily intrinsic to the engine in any meaningful sense.

Like I said, however, if you can make sense of the idea, I am willing to hear what you have to say.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Every act can only be done by acting agent(s).
The act has a moral object, intentions, circumstances, consequences, …
These can not be separated.

Show me an act that can be morally judged without an agent.
Show me an act that can be morally judged and it does not have a moral object.
Show me an act that can be morally judged and it does not have intention(s).
Show me an act that can be morally judged and it is done in vacuum without any circumstances.
…

This is very fundamental logic that can not be denied.

Yes, but the objective OBJECT of an act is not the same as the subjective INTENTION of the act. In order for an action to be morally permissible, both the object and the intention must be permissible.

So it is wrong to kill an innocent, even if my intention (saving 100 lives) is good. And it is wrong to save a live with the intention of extorting money from the victim, even if the object of the act (a life saved) is good.

All your "show me"s are red herrings. I’ve never said that actions could be judged absent agents, or without taking circumstances into account.

The OBJECT (=telos, = end) of marital lovemaking is children. That is the ONLY object. There are other subjective purposes that are licit reasons to make love: unity, intimacy, avoidance of sin. But the object is children.

 

[LisaA]

Well, that’s how I understood this:
"Sex is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction. That is, in the very nature of the act and the parts involved, the clearly designed end for both is to replicate combined genetic material into a new human being. That is what the act is ordered to bringing about as an intrinsic aspect of why the sex act is engaged in using the appropriate parts."
… and you are right. Your post is correct about “being open to new life” and the Church’s teaching.

Having said that the issue is that the Church puts spotlight on the specific way to have sex in this case. The procreation as to have a baby is …, well secondary.

I think it’s hairsplitting to some extent. SEX itself is intrinsically ordered to reproduction, MARITAL sex has two functions, procreative and unitive. Both should be a part of the couple’s sexual relationship.

Further this discussion proves the point that homosexual sex is disordered and against natural law since sex is ordered toward reproduction AND since it’s not within the marital bond is also gravely sinful. Fails on all counts…wrong parts used in the wrong way for the wrong purpose.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am not clear that intrinsically disordered is a coherent idea, but I am open to trying to make sense of it.

The reason it doesn’t appear coherent is that order depends upon the intrinsic structure or designed purpose of a thing. Disorder is not necessarily or logically dependent upon anything intrinsic to a thing in the way that order is necessarily tied.

Tuning a car is done, for example, with regard to the intrinsic workings of the engine parts. How is it possible to intrinsically disorder that working? The disorder wouldn’t be intrinsic to the engine in any respect. There are many ways to add disorder to the working of the engine that have nothing to do with its intrinsic function. Sugar in the gasoline, sledge hammer to it’s more delicate parts, letting the oil dry up, etc., etc., The factors that create disorder would be many, varied and not necessarily intrinsic to the engine in any meaningful sense.

Like I said, however, if you can make sense of the idea, I am willing to hear what you have to say.

Usually, we talk about intrinsically disordered dispositions, not acts. An intrinsically disordered disposition would be a disposition which inclines one to objectively disordered acts, I presume. But then, I wonder, what would an “extrinsically disordered” disposition be?

(I’m somewhat concerned that the people who wrote out the Catechism weren’t crystal clear on the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, that’s how I understood this:
"Sex is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction. That is, in the very nature of the act and the parts involved, the clearly designed end for both is to replicate combined genetic material into a new human being. That is what the act is ordered to bringing about as an intrinsic aspect of why the sex act is engaged in using the appropriate parts."
… and you are right. Your post is correct about “being open to new life” and the Church’s teaching.

Having said that the issue is that the Church puts spotlight on the specific way to have sex in this case. The procreation as to have a baby is …, well secondary.

Okay, so the question to be asked is why should a man and a woman engage in sex?

You might claim it is for them to bond with each other.

Okay, but why is their bonding with each other important in the bigger scheme of things?

It can’t have anything to do with the two great Gospel commands of loving God and loving one’s neighbor because love in that full sense of the word does not require sex. It is entirely possible to love God with whole mind, heart and being absent sex. It is also possible to love “thy neighbor as thyself” without sex. Ergo sex is not required to love others completely and fully as one human being to another.

What would be the point, then, of sex? It isn’t simply bonding with another human being in love, since love does not require sex, otherwise “love thy neighbor as thyself” takes on a whole new reality.

No, the point is marital love has a purpose that disposes the married couple towards an end goal that is bigger than both of them but requires both of them to come about - that end being to bring new life into existence as part of what keeps humanity going. That involves creating, nurturing, sustaining and forming new human beings. That is the end goal of marriage. It has to be. If a marriage is merely about two people pleasuring each other, something is missing because pleasuring each other does not require monogamy, permanence, and comprehensive union. Those are essential because something bigger is at stake than mere pleasuring of one other human being. What is at stake is keeping intact the stable means by which new human beings are created, nurtured and formed over time. That is why marriage is a basic pillar of any stable society and ought to be promoted for that unique purpose.

Again, I am not sure why this is so controversial.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think it’s hairsplitting to some extent. SEX itself is intrinsically ordered to reproduction, MARITAL sex has two functions, procreative and unitive.

In an important sense, marriage must be unitive because the unity of the two is a crucial “platform” for sustaining the well-being of the new life that is created by the unity. In a sense, it is and must be unitive because it is procreative. The unity of the couple has to supercede and be permanent beyond the normal unity of any two human beings BECAUSE the lives and well-being of vulnerable new persons hang in the balance. The unity is special to the vocation because of its unique role in sustaining human well-being over the long term.

That is exactly what gay marriage threatens by disconnecting the unity from its role with regard to sustaining human existence over time.

 

[Jaaanosik]

A married couple is supposed to be a unity essentially ordered towards loving each other in a manner that includes mind, body and soul. The inevitable end of that unity is to promote the creation, nurturing and formation of new life. That end is essentially the reason for their unity - to incarnate their love in new human beings.

Keep in mind that the well-being of those new human beings is just as paramount as the creation of them. A married couple ought not create children without regard to how they will nurture and care for their well-being. That is important to the overall goal. On the other hand, simply treating sex as entertainment or a source of pleasure does not show due concern for the gift of what sex intrinsically is about. It is a gift of one human being to another - mind, body and soul - an important aspect of that gift is its potential to create new life which shouldn’t be forgotten, but neither must it be the direct intention. The intention is unity, but unity purposed towards creating and nurturing new life and sustaining the well-being of that life.

There is a huge contradiction in what you described.
A married couple want’s to unite in order to be stronger for the sustaining of the well-being of the new life. They ‘renew their vows’ in every marital act.
A married couple has to take care of 4 children and they can not afford to have another one. NFP does not work for them. Essentially, they are denied to renew their vows. This very thing harms families, the well-being of those new human beings is not fulfilled. That is a fact. I’ve seen it.

I am not clear that intrinsically disordered is a coherent idea, but I am open to trying to make sense of it.

The reason it doesn’t appear coherent is that order depends upon the intrinsic structure or designed purpose of a thing. Disorder is not necessarily or logically dependent upon anything intrinsic to a thing in the way that order is necessarily tied.

Tuning a car is done, for example, with regard to the intrinsic workings of the engine parts. How is it possible to intrinsically disorder that working? The disorder wouldn’t be intrinsic to the engine in any respect. There are many ways to add disorder to the working of the engine that have nothing to do with its intrinsic function. Sugar in the gasoline, sledge hammer to it’s more delicate parts, letting the oil dry up, etc., etc., The factors that create disorder would be many, varied and not necessarily intrinsic to the engine in any meaningful sense.

Like I said, however, if you can make sense of the idea, I am willing to hear what you have to say.

I am sorry, I should have said intrinsically evil acts.
Do you know what are the intrinsically evil acts.

 

[LisaA]

There is a huge contradiction in what you described.
A married couple want’s to unite in order to be stronger for the sustaining of the well-being of the new life. They ‘renew their vows’ in every marital act.
A married couple has to take care of 4 children and they can not afford to have another one. NFP does not work for them. Essentially, they are denied to renew their vows. This very thing harms families, the well-being of those new human beings is not fulfilled. That is a fact. I’ve seen it.

.

Are you trying to make a case for contraception? Aside from the violation of Catholic teaching, the reality is that NFP if properly practiced is as effective as ABC in timing of the conception of children…and without all the side effects. To breezily say “it doesn’t work for them” means they are not familiar with or not practicing NFP properly. Further IF you are correct and an unexpected pregnancy occurs even if in that rare situation where a couple truly support another child, the child could be given up for adoption. Again I think you are creating a unrealistic scenario.

Do you know what are the intrinsically evil acts.

Murder, blasphemy among others.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, but the objective OBJECT of an act is not the same as the subjective INTENTION of the act. In order for an action to be morally permissible, both the object and the intention must be permissible.

So it is wrong to kill an innocent, even if my intention (saving 100 lives) is good. And it is wrong to save a live with the intention of extorting money from the victim, even if the object of the act (a life saved) is good.

All your "show me"s are red herrings. I’ve never said that actions could be judged absent agents, or without taking circumstances into account.

The OBJECT (=telos, = end) of marital lovemaking is children. That is the ONLY object. There are other subjective purposes that are licit reasons to make love: unity, intimacy, avoidance of sin. But the object is children.

How do you differentiate between a moral object and intentions? How do you identify them?

The bold part is not true for every single marital act. That is not what the Church teaches.
The object (=telos, =end) of every marital act is a specific way to have sex and to be unitive. Just read the HV.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Are you trying to make a case for contraception? Aside from the violation of Catholic teaching, the reality is that NFP if properly practiced is as effective as ABC in timing of the conception of children…and without all the side effects. To breezily say “it doesn’t work for them” means they are not familiar with or not practicing NFP properly. Further IF you are correct and an unexpected pregnancy occurs even if in that rare situation where a couple truly support another child, the child could be given up for adoption. Again I think you are creating a unrealistic scenario.

Murder, blasphemy among others.

Really? Where do you live?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=935100&highlight=NFP+poll
So many issues with NFP…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How do you differentiate between a moral object and intentions? How do you identify them?

The object of an action is the answer to the question: “Why does this sort of activity exist?” So the object of eating is nourishment and the object of sleeping is rest. There are many different (subjective) intentions one might have for eating (e.g. to experience pleasure) but the moral object (telos) of eating is nourishment.

One who eats without making allowances for nourishment is doing wrong.

In the same way, the object of lovemaking is children. That’s why lovemaking exists. It doesn’t mean that one has to desire children whenever they make love, but it does mean that making love should be done with the awareness that the natural object of the action is a child.

The bold part is not true for every single marital act. That is not what the Church teaches.

It is what the Church teaches. And it’s what biology class teaches too.

The object (=telos, =end) of every marital act is a specific way to have sex and to be unitive. Just read the HV.

I’m not sure what you mean. Can you quote me the relevant passages?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A married couple has to take care of 4 children and they can not afford to have another one. NFP does not work for them. Essentially, they are denied to renew their vows. This very thing harms families, the well-being of those new human beings is not fulfilled. That is a fact. I’ve seen it.

The fact that they “cannot afford to have another one” is not in God’s design. It may be true, but – if true – it is true either because the couple is lazy or because the society is unjust (probably the second one). We don’t accommodate morality to unjust situations – otherwise we would say that it is morally licit for a person to steal, if they have been stolen from.

 

[Rau]

There is an issue with “intrinsically disordered” definition.
In order to explain you would have to give me an example of “intrinsically ordered” act.

Look in the Catechism. Calumny is one. There are many.

 

[YosefYosep]

God created many people who have many disorders. It’s part of our fallen world. But just because God creates drunks, pedophiles and a whole host of disordered people, that doesn’t mean that he thinks they’re naturally sound. These disorders are just crosses to bear.

We may not understand why God creates people with specific crosses, but hey, who are we to question God? I wouldn’t expect an infant to understand why adults do adult things or a small child to understand why he needs a booster shot. If we expect certain finite creatures to not understand other finite creatures who know more than them, then why should we expect us (finite creatures with finite minds) to understand God (infinite being with an infinite mind?

 

[LisaA]

Really? Where do you live?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=935100&highlight=NFP+poll
So many issues with NFP…

Please don’t get so far off topic. Where I live is not relevant to this thread. Will you answer the actual question which was your example an attempt to justify use of ABC? How does that relate to the OP?

 

[Jaaanosik]

The object of an action is the answer to the question: “Why does this sort of activity exist?” So the object of eating is nourishment and the object of sleeping is rest. There are many different (subjective) intentions one might have for eating (e.g. to experience pleasure) but the moral object (telos) of eating is nourishment.

One who eats without making allowances for nourishment is doing wrong.

In the same way, the object of lovemaking is children. That’s why lovemaking exists. It doesn’t mean that one has to desire children whenever they make love, but it does mean that making love should be done with the awareness that the natural object of the action is a child.

It is what the Church teaches. And it’s what biology class teaches too.

I’m not sure what you mean. Can you quote me the relevant passages?

Well, how do you apply it to murder? What is the moral object of a murder?
Why does a murder exist? Is it the right question to find out the moral object?

HV - Union and Procreation:* “… The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life…”*
The important word here is “capable” - that means a specific way to have sex - open to life. That’s how the procreation is understood in HV.
Whether the children come or not is secondary to the requirement of being “capable”.