Homosexual Orientation Allowed?

[mosher]

St.BJLabre:

The homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered, not evil. Check the Catechism. Anyway, the vast majority of people don’t chose to be homosexual anymore than people chose to be heterosexual. Homosexual orientation is blameless, but that doesn’t mean that it is natural. It is homosexual acts that are evil. Homosexuals, like all Christians, are called to chastity.

I don’t think you fully understand what disordered means. If something is disordered then it is intrinsically evil in the sense that it is a privation of the intrinsic goodness of the natural state of the human person. The CCC only has a portion of the Church’s position on this issue which is explained in futher depth in other magesterial documents.

Ortho:

What do you mean when you say SSA is ordered to contraception?

Exactly what JPII ment when he said this. SSA is directly ordered to the distruction of human society in the sense that it is a disorder that is not ordered to life.

Ortho:

What does intrinsically disordered mean? I’m not trying to pick at your words, but have never understood what the Church is talking about when they use such terms.

The term is derived from determination of what is ordered. Now, what is beng spoken of is the moral order. All things have an end and the final end of man is God. God is our teleological end. Now if an action or disposition is not ordered to its natural end then it is disordered. In a sense it has a privation of good and is thus evil. There are also natural disorders. An example is that I have to wear glasses. The natual state of my eyes are to have 20/20 vision but they do not. So, my eyes are disordered according to the natural order.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

I don’t think you fully understand what disordered means. If something is disordered then it is intrinsically evil in the sense that it is a privation of the intrinsic goodness of the natural state of the human person. The CCC only has a portion of the Church’s position on this issue which is explained in futher depth in other magesterial documents.

Exactly what JPII ment when he said this. SSA is directly ordered to the distruction of human society in the sense that it is a disorder that is not ordered to life.

The term is derived from determination of what is ordered. Now, what is beng spoken of is the moral order. All things have an end and the final end of man is God. God is our teleological end. Now if an action or disposition is not ordered to its natural end then it is disordered. In a sense it has a privation of good and is thus evil. There are also natural disorders. An example is that I have to wear glasses. The natual state of my eyes are to have 20/20 vision but they do not. So, my eyes are disordered according to the natural order.

OK. Understand what you are saying. Sounds like it all revolves around the natural law problem of who defines nature. Since most people do not have 20/20 eyesight, is 20/20 natural or ideal?

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

OK. Understand what you are saying. Sounds like it all revolves around the natural law problem of who defines nature. Since most people do not have 20/20 eyesight, is 20/20 natural or ideal?

Be careful to not equate the “laws of nature” with the “natural law” but I think you have a correct understanding. The issue of natural evil demonstrated by the example of eyesight is that it is proper for a man to have perfect 20/20 eyesight. However, because of the finite nature of creation we see that this is not always the case and so a certain amount of “non-being” is introduced into the system and thus you find me sitting at a computer with glasses on my eyes. So, in a sense you are correct that 20/20 eyesight is the ideal however it is also correct to say that it is natural to have 20/20 eyesight eventhough we find a high instance of ocular disorder. Instead of thinking about what is the norm look for the perfection and that is the proper order.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

Be careful to not equate the “laws of nature” with the “natural law” but I think you have a correct understanding. The issue of natural evil demonstrated by the example of eyesight is that it is proper for a man to have perfect 20/20 eyesight. However, because of the finite nature of creation we see that this is not always the case and so a certain amount of “non-being” is introduced into the system and thus you find me sitting at a computer with glasses on my eyes. So, in a sense you are correct that 20/20 eyesight is the ideal however it is also correct to say that it is natural to have 20/20 eyesight eventhough we find a high instance of ocular disorder. Instead of thinking about what is the norm look for the perfection and that is the proper order.

Understand the distinctions. But one will have a very difficult time generating agreement on perfection. I suspect agreement is only possible in groups which accept a common authority. And that’s not what we see in society.

 

[St.BJLabre]

I don’t think you fully understand what disordered means. If something is disordered then it is intrinsically evil in the sense that it is a privation of the intrinsic goodness of the natural state of the human person. The CCC only has a portion of the Church’s position on this issue which is explained in futher depth in other magesterial documents.

I simply mean that just being a homosexual is not a sin.

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

Understand the distinctions. But one will have a very difficult time generating agreement on perfection. I suspect agreement is only possible in groups which accept a common authority. And that’s not what we see in society.

Perfection is nto determined by authority or by vote. Rather, perfection stems from the very being of the thing itself. It is intrinsic to the thing or action. There are basic axioms that let us understand what a perfection is. Such things are determining what the end is of any one thing and if there is a quality that is deficient in the actual object then one can assert that there is a disorder in the object itself. It is easier with more drastic issues. Building upon vision issue we can say that it is proper for the eye to see. If a person is born or becomes blind then the eyes are not in a state of perfection but are gravely disordered.

St.BJLabre:

I simply mean that just being a homosexual is not a sin.

True. However, one could argue that not trying to order SSA back to the ordered state of heterosexuality could carry with it an issue of culpability. I myself am hesitant to say that because there is not enough scientific data on the issue. However, the scientific data on the issue lean more to nurture than nature at this time. Thus, I think it would at the very least be beneficial to work to ordering ones passions in this area if they struggle with SSA.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

Perfection is nto determined by authority or by vote. Rather, perfection stems from the very being of the thing itself. It is intrinsic to the thing or action. There are basic axioms that let us understand what a perfection is. Such things are determining what the end is of any one thing and if there is a quality that is deficient in the actual object then one can assert that there is a disorder in the object itself. It is easier with more drastic issues. Building upon vision issue we can say that it is proper for the eye to see. If a person is born or becomes blind then the eyes are not in a state of perfection but are gravely disordered.

True. However, one could argue that not trying to order SSA back to the ordered state of heterosexuality could carry with it an issue of culpability. I myself am hesitant to say that because there is not enough scientific data on the issue. However, the scientific data on the issue lean more to nurture than nature at this time. Thus, I think it would at the very least be beneficial to work to ordering ones passions in this area if they struggle with SSA.

Example of basic axioms that let us understand what a perfection is?

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

Example of basic axioms that let us understand what a perfection is?

The question must be asked:

What is the object (or end) of the thing? Does this thing fulfill its end? To what level of potency?

What one must do is seperate the thing from its subjective reality and speak about the universal. This is the major difference with todays educational system. We are accustomed to speak on the level of the particular but we are not accustomed to speak on the level of the universal. True, in the empirical sciences we speak of particulars and try to develop a universal from the particular. However, this can not work because it is illogical to go from particular to universal. Rather, to discuss levels of perfection one must start with the universal and move to the particular.

 

[mikew262]

St.BJLabre:

The homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered, not evil. Check the Catechism. Anyway, the vast majority of people don’t chose to be homosexual anymore than people chose to be heterosexual. Homosexual orientation is blameless, but that doesn’t mean that it is natural. It is homosexual acts that are evil. Homosexuals, like all Christians, are called to chastity.

For the most part, I agree with your position. IMO, I think there a chemical imbalance somewhere within a homosexual that causes that person to be attracted to the same sex. They can’t help the way they feel. While the church considers homosexual activity sinful, is it fair to ask these folks to not engage in this type of activity their entire life? This is a pretty tough request! Thank God, most of us aren’t faced with that decision. Be celebate for ever more? I’m not sure what the answer is (yes, I know what the church’s answer is).

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Polska:

Let me get this straight…according to the catholic church:

Gay marriage is not allowed
Gay sex is not allowed
However, being a homosexual is allowed as an orientation? So you can be gay, and its not a sin as long as u remain celibate?

Celibate is celibate. I.e., you have sex with no-one (not even yourself). Being gay by implication involves acting on a homosexual impulse. We are all tempted by sin. We actually sin when we act on temptation. So, to be homosexually inclined is considered an intrinsic disorder, because natural law considers homosexual activity to be unproductive (two guys could never get pregnant, no matter how hard they try). However, if this impulse is never acted on, it is not considered sinful. I may avoid caving to temptation because I am afraid of punishment (either here or in the hereafter). This desire to sin is called concupiscence. We overcome concupiscence by Grace, when we abide in it.

If I see an unattended cash register with a couple hundred dollars in it, I may be tempted to snatch it and run, but it is only a sin if I actually do it. Then again, I may NOT be tempted by it, because I know that it is offensive to God, and I don’t want to offend my Father.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

The question must be asked:

What is the object (or end) of the thing? Does this thing fulfill its end? To what level of potency?

What one must do is seperate the thing from its subjective reality and speak about the universal. This is the major difference with todays educational system. We are accustomed to speak on the level of the particular but we are not accustomed to speak on the level of the universal. True, in the empirical sciences we speak of particulars and try to develop a universal from the particular. However, this can not work because it is illogical to go from particular to universal. Rather, to discuss levels of perfection one must start with the universal and move to the particular.

Is the following bold statement the axiom? **The question must be asked: What is the object (or end) of the thing? Does this thing fulfill its end? To what level of potency? ** From what you have said, I presume there must be a universal from which you move to particular. What is that universal?

Asking about the object of the thing will bring multiple responses, hence the problem with using natural law in a diverse society.

In natural science one develops a natural scientific theory through experimental confirmation of a hypothesis. The most that can be said is the hypothesis has been confirmed X times, in Y settings, at Z times. After X demonstations, we accept the scientific theory as reliable and assign a high probability that it will continue to confirm the hypothesis in the future.

For example, each time I board an airplane, I am part of another experiment confirming the Bernouli principle. There is no guarantee that the plane will fly simply because flight has been demonstrated millions of times in the past.

Natural science doesn’t prove things. It demonstrates confirmation of hypotheses. Experience has taught us the probability is very high that subsequent demonstartions will act as previous ones did. But we do not develop a universal. We may act as if it is a universal (by getting on that plane), but we have to acknowledge that it isn’t.

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

Is the following bold statement the axiom? **The question must be asked: What is the object (or end) of the thing? Does this thing fulfill its end? To what level of potency? ** From what you have said, I presume there must be a universal from which you move to particular. What is that universal?

Asking about the object of the thing will bring multiple responses, hence the problem with using natural law in a diverse society.

In natural science one develops a natural scientific theory through experimental confirmation of a hypothesis. The most that can be said is the hypothesis has been confirmed X times, in Y settings, at Z times. After X demonstations, we accept the scientific theory as reliable and assign a high probability that it will continue to confirm the hypothesis in the future.

For example, each time I board an airplane, I am part of another experiment confirming the Bernouli principle. There is no guarantee that the plane will fly simply because flight has been demonstrated millions of times in the past.

Natural science doesn’t prove things. It demonstrates confirmation of hypotheses. Experience has taught us the probability is very high that subsequent demonstartions will act as previous ones did. But we do not develop a universal. We may act as if it is a universal (by getting on that plane), but we have to acknowledge that it isn’t.

But, see, this is my point. One must start with the universal in all these questions. There is no systematic testing in the same way. Rather one developes the syllogism and determines if it is valid or not and then applies the valid statement to reality to see if it is true. This is why deductive reasoning is so radically different than inductive reasoning.

Going back to the eyesight issue. The philosopher does not say “perfect eyesight is 20/20 vision” as that would be silly for him to say. Rather the philosopher says “there is such a thing as perfect vision” from that point one takes the concept of perfect vision and says that anything less that concept is deficient. One cannot assign a numerical value to this state of perfection because perfection is qualitative and not quantitative. Hence you deal with concepts in the abstract and then apply to the concrete. The philosopher knows that it is probably impossible for anyone to have perfect eyesight because of of the finite nature of the universe. However, the empiricist will give a numerical value of 20/20 to perfect eyesight and match all data to that point based on the percision of instruments which still affirms that no person really has perfect eyesight but some people get so close that the difference does not matter much.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

But, see, this is my point. One must start with the universal in all these questions. There is no systematic testing in the same way. Rather one developes the syllogism and determines if it is valid or not and then applies the valid statement to reality to see if it is true. This is why deductive reasoning is so radically different than inductive reasoning.

Going back to the eyesight issue. The philosopher does not say “perfect eyesight is 20/20 vision” as that would be silly for him to say. Rather the philosopher says “there is such a thing as perfect vision” from that point one takes the concept of perfect vision and says that anything less that concept is deficient. One cannot assign a numerical value to this state of perfection because perfection is qualitative and not quantitative. Hence you deal with concepts in the abstract and then apply to the concrete. The philosopher knows that it is probably impossible for anyone to have perfect eyesight because of of the finite nature of the universe. However, the empiricist will give a numerical value of 20/20 to perfect eyesight and match all data to that point based on the percision of instruments which still affirms that no person really has perfect eyesight but some people get so close that the difference does not matter much.

Understand. Is the axiom, “There is such a thing as perfect vision?”

 

[Libero]

Thats crazy because I thought being gay was wrong ie. You have to try for the gay person to find God and somehow be converted to a heterosexual. Maybe this is because…im guessing… a large number of gays are because of choice, perversion etc. instead of beign truly born gay.

This is deeply involved in science, that really we do not know that much about, my biology teacher devoted a session to it, and it is really interesting stuff, to see what science is revealing.

Whilst trying to “cure” some is okay, and often has good results, I believe that there are also cases where trying to cure people is not good, as it would just be a waste of time, and possibly distressing to the person in question.

Attempting to change a persons sexual orientation is a big task, and is one that I am very unsure about, wether or not it is always the correct thing to do is debatable, and may very well be unethical.

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

Understand. Is the axiom, “There is such a thing as perfect vision?”

I think it is more proper to say that the axiom is perfection is that which fully completes the natural end of the thing.

Let us go back to the issue at hand. We take the principle that all things must be used in accord with their nature. With this in mind we find that the major purpose of the heterosexual orientation is the propogation of the species by the use of the natural functions according to our sex. The propogation of the species is the natural state whereas sexual activity that does not invest itself in the propogation of the species is not ordered to its proper end. Homosexual orientation detracts from the created passion that drives men and women together to help propogate the species. Thus, the orientation is itself disordered to the good. In this sense the good is the passion of attraction of men and women for the further end of propogation of the species. Hence the teleological end of the orientation is the propogation of the species which is made defunct by a SSA orientation.

 

[Liberian]

JKirkLVNV:

It is gravely disordered and it is serious, but in and of itself, it carries no culpability.

JKirk,

If I remember correctly, it was termed “intrinsically disordered” rather than “gravely disordered.” “Intrinsically” means “in and of itself, not because of something else.” But you are right–the orientation by itself carries no culpability.

• Liberian

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

I think it is more proper to say that the axiom is perfection is that which fully completes the natural end of the thing.

Let us go back to the issue at hand. We take the principle that all things must be used in accord with their nature. With this in mind we find that the major purpose of the heterosexual orientation is the propogation of the species by the use of the natural functions according to our sex. The propogation of the species is the natural state whereas sexual activity that does not invest itself in the propogation of the species is not ordered to its proper end. Homosexual orientation detracts from the created passion that drives men and women together to help propogate the species. Thus, the orientation is itself disordered to the good. In this sense the good is the passion of attraction of men and women for the further end of propogation of the species. Hence the teleological end of the orientation is the propogation of the species which is made defunct by a SSA orientation.

I would say a result of heterosexual orientation is the propogation of the species. But purpose? Whose purpose?

And proper end depends on knowing purpose.

We can also observe the result of heterosexual sex is fun, companionship, support, commitment, and expression of love.

It all comes down to who is defining nature. I suspect there is an axiom involved in defining that nature. Is there? What is it?

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

I would say a result of heterosexual orientation is the propogation of the species. But purpose? Whose purpose?

And proper end depends on knowing purpose.

We can also observe the result of heterosexual sex is fun, companionship, support, commitment, and expression of love.

It all comes down to who is defining nature. I suspect there is an axiom involved in defining that nature. Is there? What is it?

Just exactly that … and end is in a sense the purpose. The pleasures you describe are nice but they are not the purpose of sexuality. Sexuality has a purpose directed to procreation. Any materialist or Darwinist will affirm that aspect. It is just like eating. Enjoyment with eating is not the end but it is a benefit.