Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[Jaaanosik]

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

Is there an intrinsically ordered - intrinsically good act?
For example, is act of praying intrinsically good? Is love, any expression of love intrinsically good?
Intrinsically good would mean that regardless of intentions and circumstances the act is always good based on the moral object of the act alone.
Is there such an act?

If you give me an example I can point out what is the issue with the ‘intrinsically evil’ definition.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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?

“Murder” means “wrongful killing”. So we can’t call that an action-type, and so we can’t say it has a telos. But “killing” has a telos: the death of another person. So perhaps my phrasing “Why does X exist?” was imprecise. I should say, “What is it that makes an Xing an Xing?”

What is it that makes a killing a killing? The death of the victim. What is it that makes the procreative act the procreative act? Children.

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”.

Of course, I agree that whether children actually arise is immaterial. Aside from that, though, I don’t see how your quote contradicts anything I have said.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is there an intrinsically ordered - intrinsically good act?
For example, is act of praying intrinsically good? Is love, any expression of love intrinsically good?
Intrinsically good would mean that regardless of intentions and circumstances the act is always good based on the moral object of the act alone.
Is there such an act?

If you give me an example I can point out what is the issue with the ‘intrinsically evil’ definition.

Surely there are no intrinsically good acts (using your definition), unless we include in the definition of the act its subjective intention.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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?

This is about understanding of the Natural law.
What is a moral object of marriage - a man and a woman, and what is a moral object of marriage sexual act.
When this is clear then we can understand why homosexual acts are against the Natural law.

 

[Rau]

Is there an intrinsically ordered - intrinsically good act?
For example, is act of praying intrinsically good? Is love, any expression of love intrinsically good?
Intrinsically good would mean that regardless of intentions and circumstances the act is always good based on the moral object of the act alone.
Is there such an act?

If you give me an example I can point out what is the issue with the ‘intrinsically evil’ definition.

You wanted an example of an intrinsically disordered act for just that purpose. I gave you one. Now you want something else for the same reason?
Are you seeking to re-run this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=909279

Your ideas about Catholic Morality were pretty comprehensively addressed then I think. In the end, you don’t accept the principles of Catholic Morality - you have a different model.

 

[LisaA]

This is about understanding of the Natural law.
What is a moral object of marriage - a man and a woman, and what is a moral object of marriage sexual act.
When this is clear then we can understand why homosexual acts are against the Natural law.

Homosexual acts are against Natural Law. You can determine this from biology.You do not need to be a Theologian. This really isn’t related to the Catholic view on marriage which is not shared by much of the world unfortunately. Normal sexual relations between men and women with or without marriage are not against Natural Law,but they are against Catholic teaching. I think you are trying to conflate two different issues.

 

[Jaaanosik]

“Murder” means “wrongful killing”. So we can’t call that an action-type, and so we can’t say it has a telos. But “killing” has a telos: the death of another person. So perhaps my phrasing “Why does X exist?” was imprecise. I should say, “What is it that makes an Xing an Xing?”

What is it that makes a killing a killing? The death of the victim. What is it that makes the procreative act the procreative act? Children.

Of course, I agree that whether children actually arise is immaterial. Aside from that, though, I don’t see how your quote contradicts anything I have said.

When there is a dead victim there might be a murder. If there is nobody dead then there is no act of murder.

The same logic, if there are no children then there is no marital act. Correct?
But that can not be, the marital act is real, therefore children can not be the moral object of every single marital act.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You wanted an example of an intrinsically disordered act for just that purpose. I gave you one. Now you want something else for the same reason?
Are you seeking to re-run this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=909279

Your ideas about Catholic Morality were pretty comprehensively addressed then I think. In the end, you don’t accept the principles of Catholic Morality - you have a different model.

Please, read it again…

Rau:

Jaaanosik:

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.

I wanted intrinsically ordered act from the beginning.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Surely there are no intrinsically good acts (using your definition), unless we include in the definition of the act its subjective intention.

That’s not my definition I am using the inverted Church’s definition:
CCC 1756: It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

If there are intrinsically evil acts why there are no intrinsically good acts?
Is it logical?

 

[Rau]

Please, read it again…

I wanted intrinsically ordered act from the beginning.

Oh sorry. I’ve never heard that expression “intrinsically ordered act”. please explain how it might be used?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

When there is a dead victim there might be a murder. If there is nobody dead then there is no act of murder.

The same logic, if there are no children then there is no marital act. Correct?
But that can not be, the marital act is real, therefore children can not be the moral object of every single marital act.

Say “killing”, not “murder”. Murder does not have a telos.

But here, let’s work on the point you made, which has some interest. Consider Bob, who makes a habit of taking machine guns and shooting them at people on the subway. In Bob’s universe, every time he does this, the bullets are miraculously averted somehow. This means that Bob never kills anyone.

Would it be accurate to say that Bob is engaged in killing? No. Would it be accurate to say he doing the “type of thing” that (in this fictional universe) ends people’s lives? Again, no. In that universe, killing is not done with machine guns.

Now consider a married couple having sex, in the ordinary way. Are they engaged in procreating? You might say, “That depends on what happens, whether a child is born.” Fine. But now ask: “Are they doing the type of thing that procreates?” Yes! They certainly are. Moreover, the thing they are doing – the marital act – gets its nature from its natural result: childbearing.

Is there still a marital act without children resulting? Yes, so long as the action type is the type that would – under proper conditions – result in children. If children were born because people with different colored hair played footsie, then footsie would be the marital act.

You’ll notice, by the way, that there is no BIOLOGICAL result of the marital act other than children. Emotional unity is a nice possible result, but it does not occur in any lawlike, biological way. Children are what make sex sex.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s not my definition I am using the inverted Church’s definition:
CCC 1756: It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

If there are intrinsically evil acts why there are no intrinsically good acts?
Is it logical?

From “an action can be evil despite having good intentions”, it does not follow that “an action can be good despite having bad intentions.” There are no intrinsically good acts. I am 100% sure about that.

 

[Rau]

That’s not my definition I am using the inverted Church’s definition:
CCC 1756: It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

If there are intrinsically evil acts why there are no intrinsically good acts?
Is it logical?

Perfectly logical (if word games are being avoided). Think of it in Boolean Logic terms. In an AND function, one 0 makes the result 0. A single 1 (even when it the moral object) is not enough to guarantee the result is 1.

But this is getting off-topic.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Say “killing”, not “murder”. Murder does not have a telos.

But here, let’s work on the point you made, which has some interest. Consider Bob, who makes a habit of taking machine guns and shooting them at people on the subway. In Bob’s universe, every time he does this, the bullets are miraculously averted somehow. This means that Bob never kills anyone.

Would it be accurate to say that Bob is engaged in killing? No. Would it be accurate to say he doing the “type of thing” that (in this fictional universe) ends people’s lives? Again, no. In that universe, killing is not done with machine guns.

Now consider a married couple having sex, in the ordinary way. Are they engaged in procreating? You might say, “That depends on what happens, whether a child is born.” Fine. But now ask: “Are they doing the type of thing that procreates?” Yes! They certainly are. Moreover, the thing they are doing – the marital act – gets its nature from its natural result: childbearing.

Is there still a marital act without children resulting? Yes, so long as the action type is the type that would – under proper conditions – result in children. If children were born because people with different colored hair played footsie, then footsie would be the marital act.

You’ll notice, by the way, that there is no BIOLOGICAL result of the marital act other than children. Emotional unity is a nice possible result, but it does not occur in any lawlike, biological way. Children are what make sex sex.

As you said: *What is it that makes a killing a killing? The death of the victim. What is it that makes the procreative act the procreative act? Children. *

No dead victim - no act of killing.
No children - no marital act.
Is it correct?

If an NFP couple is spacing children, they do not want to have a baby then how that **not wanted child **can be a moral object of their marital act?
That is so illogical it’s not even funny.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Perfectly logical (if word games are being avoided). Think of it in Boolean Logic terms. In an AND function, one 0 makes the result 0. A single 1 (even when it the moral object) is not enough to guarantee the result is 1.

But this is getting off-topic.

This is a simple implication.
If object is immoral then the act is immoral.
Nothing else influences the outcome.

When it’s inverted then … if object is moral then the act is moral.
Nothing else should influence the outcome.

If we do not have moral objects like that, meaning we have to ask what are the circumstances and intentions, …
then why the same is not applied to the immoral objects and acts?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If an NFP couple is spacing children, they do not want to have a baby then how that **not wanted child **can be a moral object of their marital act?

YES!!!

You keep assuming that the telos of an act has something to do with the purposes for which someone pursues the act. That assumption is false. Catholic theology doesn’t work that way. The telos of an action is an objective fact, independent of human agency. So, for example, the telos of a football game is winning, even if one of the players is trying to lose.

See plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle

As you said: *What is it that makes a killing a killing? The death of the victim. What is it that makes the procreative act the procreative act? Children. *

Yes, insofar as, if there were no killed people, there would be no killings. And if there were no children, there would be no procreative (marital) act.

Consider: shooting someone between the eyes is a killing-type act. Right? Even if it fails to kill sometimes?

In the same way, coitus is a reproductive-type act, even if it fails to reproduce sometimes.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is a simple implication.
If object is immoral then the act is immoral.
Nothing else influences the outcome.

When it’s inverted then … if object is moral then the act is moral.
Nothing else should influence the outcome.

If we do not have moral objects like that, meaning we have to ask what are the circumstances and intentions, …
then why the same is not applied to the immoral objects and acts?

Let’s see: are “if an object is immoral, then the act is immoral” logically equivalent to “if the object is moral, then the act is moral.”

1. If not-A, then not-B.

To try to prove “If A, then B”, let’s assume the opposite.

1. Not (If A, then B).

Equivalent to

1. A and not-B.

This information does not help us prove what we’re trying to prove. All such attempts are fallacious. We cannot derive a contradiction from #1 and #3. Why? Because they are logically consistent.

Therefore, “If A, then B” could still be true.

Any more questions? Take a class in advanced logic.

 

[Rau]

This is a simple implication.
If object is immoral then the act is immoral.
Nothing else influences the outcome.

When it’s inverted then … if object is moral then the act is moral.
Nothing else should influence the outcome.

If we do not have moral objects like that, meaning we have to ask what are the circumstances and intentions, …
then why the same is not applied to the immoral objects and acts?

I’m afraid that is not the mathematics of Boolean logic. It was explained to you above. The Boolean AND function.

Boolean logic:

X=A+B+C, thus
X’=A’ or B’ or C’

Where the + indicates AND and ’ indicates inversion. i studied this subject 35 years ago so hope I got it right.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is a simple implication.
If object is immoral then the act is immoral.
Nothing else influences the outcome.

When it’s inverted then … if object is moral then the act is moral.
Nothing else should influence the outcome.

If we do not have moral objects like that, meaning we have to ask what are the circumstances and intentions, …
then why the same is not applied to the immoral objects and acts?

Suppose that every sex act inevitably and without fail produced at least one child.

Wouldn’t that eventuality mean that it would be immoral to engage in sex without regard for outcome and solely for the pleasure?

Suppose that the two individuals involved in the sex act were to simply abandon their progeny to the elements without concern for their survival or well-being or only kept a few as they chose.

Do you think that indiscriminately engaging in sex in that manner would be a moral right act?

Would you consider sex to be a “right” of some kind justified solely for the pleasure or unity between the two engaging in the act? If not, why not?

If society deemed it permissible to dispose of unwanted progeny at the discretion of the married couple would you think that society would, indeed, have the right to make treating offspring as morally inconsequential and disposing of them at will permissible?

 

[truetofaith]

If Adam or Eve were queer…God never would have been able to continue the human race.