Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[James82]

Name another use of the term “objectively disordered” in Catholic Theology! That which is “objectively disordered” 1 in connection with homosexuality is not itself a sin at all, and there is no basis to assert that the “root” of homosexual inclinations is sin 2. The CCC declares the homosexual sexual Acts are “intrinsically disordered”, like many other sins.

1. I apologize, intrinsic.
2. Stop playing around please.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Rom 1:24-32

 

[James82]

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.

Now merely because sex is pleasureable and some have prioritized pleasure over purpose does not mean sex has lost its intrinsic purpose. Throwing in artificial contraception which intentionally thwarts the end result does nothing to disprove the intrinsic ordering of sex towards procreation; just the opposite, in fact. It demonstrates that to prioritize pleasure over purpose it is necessary to artificially disconnect the act from the purpose – abortion is definitive proof of that.

The piano sitting in front of me is intrinsically ordered towards making music. It is designed and constructed towards the production of music. Sure, I can use it as a place to set a drink glass or photograph, but by its very nature it is intrinsically ordered towards making music NOT being an oversized coaster. It has no other intrinsic function because by its very design it functions to make music. If I hollow out the interior, replace some or all of the sides with glass and turn it into a fish tank, I may have repurposed the piano, but that does not change what its intrinsic purpose was. I cannot even claim that the intrinsic purpose of the piano has now become to be a fish tank since being a fish tank was never and could never be “intrinsic” or integral to the design of the piano. Such a claim would fail to explain the keyboard, the soundboard, strings, pedals, etc., that were part of the original piano design and integral to what makes a piano a piano, to begin with.

Sex organs are likewise intrinsically ordered by their very nature to bring about reproduction– that is their function by virtue of their intrinsic nature. If they were designed merely for pleasure, the future existence of the human race would not depend entirely upon their proper use.

Now if you want to argue that the purpose of the piano is merely to give pleasure to its hearers, that does nothing to explain the intrinsic design of the piano nor what it does. There is nothing intrinsic to the piano that necessarily gives pleasure to listeners of music since “pleasure” depends upon the subject – the hearers – and not the piano as an functioning entity.

Frankly, I am not clear why this is even a matter of contention. It is as self-evident as anything possibly could be.

Beautifully put together.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

1. I apologize, intrinsic.
2. Stop playing around please.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Rom 1:24-32

James,

I appreciate that passage, but I’m not sure it is a good explanation of why particular people experience same-sex attraction. So, for instance, I began to find men sexually attractive when I was about 10. Do you think that God gave me over to a depraved mind because I was foolish and idolatrous? Or how would you explain my experience?

 

[Rau]

1. Stop playing around please.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Rom 1:24-32

Consider the case of the young Catholic man, Jimmy. He enjoyed a normal upbringing in a normal, happy family - nothing exceptional or untoward that he, or anyone else, can point to. But from puberty the normal attractions did not arise. Attractions to other boys arose. Jimmy was distressed at this and sought counsel from his Priest who explained that all sorts of trials afflict men, and while we don’t know why, we are taught what we must do. Jimmy has not engaged in homosexual acts and every day commits to reject them. He attends Mass and receives the Sacraments regularly. He fully understand the statement in the Catechism: “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

What is the “root” of Jimmy’s homosexual inclination? Is it something he did? Is Jimmy being punished by God for something? What? Or by “sin”, do you mean “sin in the world”, or “our fallen world” - where we are all frail in some way.

 

[LisaA]

What is the “root” of Jimmy’s homosexual inclination? Is it something he did? Is Jimmy being punished by God for something? What? Or by “sin”, do you mean “sin in the world”, or “our fallen world” - where we are all frail in some way.

Why does that matter? If Jimmy is aware of this inclination, aware that it is gravely disordered to act upon the inclination, that he guards his eyes and heart every day and is vigilant about his behavior what possible difference does it make WHY he became attracted to males? It’s the sort of paralysis by analysis that doesn’t get anyone anywhere. Even if he understood some childhood experience or some relationship was behind the SSA, it won’t “cure” him.

Better to know what is happening and how to fight it rather than why.

 

[Rau]

Why does that matter? If Jimmy is aware of this inclination, aware that it is gravely disordered to act upon the inclination, that he guards his eyes and heart every day and is vigilant about his behavior what possible difference does it make WHY he became attracted to males? It’s the sort of paralysis by analysis that doesn’t get anyone anywhere. Even if he understood some childhood experience or some relationship was behind the SSA, it won’t “cure” him.

I asked the question (rhetorically) in light of the “answer” proffered by James82 in posts #349 and #399. James82 asserted a “reason” for homosexual inclinations that appeared to imply that “Jimmy” must somehow be at fault for God was punishing him. He is welcome to explain what he meant, if that is not it.

 

[James82]

James,

I appreciate that passage, but I’m not sure it is a good explanation of why particular people experience same-sex attraction. So, for instance, I began to find men sexually attractive when I was about 10. Do you think that God gave me over to a depraved mind because I was foolish and idolatrous? Or how would you explain my experience?

Hey Prodigal,

Just to be clear, are you saying that you yourself experienced these inclinations at 10, or just using a example via first person? Just so we can move ahead with the discussion.

 

[Rau]

Hey Prodigal,

Just to be clear, are you saying that you yourself experienced these inclinations at 10, or just using a example via first person? Just so we can move ahead with the discussion.

He means he himself. Though unless you deny such happens, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s Prodigal or “Jimmy”.

 

[ericc]

Homosexuals are not a separate species! They will not be “extinct” unless the human race itself dies off! And that is not likely to happen even if every gay person who wanted to got married today. There are plenty of heterosexuals to keep the human species going. Infertile individuals are not treated as a seperate “parasitic” species, and neither are homosexual couples simply because they cannot procreate.

As much as it might pain you, homosexuals are your sisters and brothers. Are we not called to LOVE our neighbors? Describing them as if they weren’t even human is about as hateful as it gets.

I’m sorry I wasn’t specific enough and may have offended the species of which I am part of. I should have written more accurately, that is, a category of the human species, categorized into homosexuals and heterosexuals. I am strictly addressing the title of this thread. My contention is that it couldn’t be very natural because the homosexual category if you put all of them on an island with no interaction from the heterosexual category, they will die out in one generation if they engage in homosexual acts only. Therefore, that couldn’t be all that natural if the population is not self-multiplying and therefore against Natural Law.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hey Prodigal,

Just to be clear, are you saying that you yourself experienced these inclinations at 10, or just using a example via first person? Just so we can move ahead with the discussion.

I mean myself. And to be clear, before that time, I had no sexual experience except some degree of proto-masturbation, and I had never been exposed to any homosexual material. I just looked at a picture of a man in his underwear (in Sports Illustrated) and was strongly inclined to lust.

 

[ericc]

You don’t seem to have the foggiest idea of what SSA is.

I am not pretending to know anything about SSA. I am just replying the to the title of this thread that “Homosexual Acts are not against Natural law.” My response to Crow and dove wasn’t very accurate and I have amended to reflect the proper intention in #407. Which is inability to procreate will doom that category. Which leads to my contention that the population is not self multiplying and doomed to die if only homosexual acts are engaged. Therefore, homosexual acts are against Natural Law.

 

[Ignatius]

It seems to me that homosexual acts are not against the Natural Law.
.

That is wishful thinking designed to excuse the behavior that is clearly against the Natural Law.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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.

Why are the intentions treated in two different ways? Where is some kind of consistency in the logical process?
What can justify the logical double standard?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why are the intentions treated in two different ways? Where is some kind of consistency in the logical process?
What can justify the logical double standard?

There’s no logical double standard.

“If it’s not cold, then it’s not snowing” does not imply “If it’s cold, it’s snowing.” THINK ABOUT IT.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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

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.

What is the moral object of a contraception? An unwanted child? The same as for the NFP couple?

 

[Jaaanosik]

There’s no logical double standard.

“If it’s not cold, then it’s not snowing” does not imply “If it’s cold, it’s snowing.” THINK ABOUT IT.

I’ve never talked about negation of the implication.
I am talking about how the intentions are treated in two different ways. Once they are ignored then they are not ignored in the other instance. How come?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What is the moral object of a contraception? An unwanted child? The same as for the NFP couple?

The moral object of “taking a pill” or “putting on a condom” is to sterilize sex. That moral object is intrinsically wrong.

The moral object of having sex is children. One cannot have sex *in order to *not have children. Only taking contraception can have that goal, not having sex.

Suppose one has sex WHILE on contraception. Still, in this case, the moral object is children, and the action of having sex is not intrinsically wrong. The past usage of contraception (or the putting on of the condom) is the wrong thing.

Please read: orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ve never talked about negation of the implication.
I am talking about how the intentions are treated in two different ways. Once they are ignored then they are not ignored in the other instance. How come?

The intention of taking the Pill is completely different from the intention of making love.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The moral object of “taking a pill” or “putting on a condom” is to sterilize sex. That moral object is intrinsically wrong.

The moral object of having sex is children. One cannot have sex *in order to *not have children. Only taking contraception can have that goal, not having sex.

Suppose one has sex WHILE on contraception. Still, in this case, the moral object is children, and the action of having sex is not intrinsically wrong. The past usage of contraception (or the putting on of the condom) is the wrong thing.

Please read: orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml

To the bold part … no no no no no you have it wrong.
“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.”
How is the sterilization independent from human agency? It’s the agent doing the act! Where is a common sense in it?

Again, what is the purpose for which the agent pursues the contraception? To sterilize the sex.
According to you the purpose is not supposed to be the moral object. Do I understand it correctly?

… and this “One cannot have sex in order to not have children.” is a good foundation for a schizophrenic behavior. What is NFP about?
This is the reason why NFP will not be successful. The schizophrenia behind it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The intention of taking the Pill is completely different from the intention of making love.

Please, forget the Pill and lovemaking.
It’s about the principle. Why are intentions, circumstances, … of a moral act treated in two different ways?