Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[polytropos]

I apologize unreservedly if that’s how you took it. I thought you were summarizing a position taken by some philosophers and I was commenting on that position.

No problem.

If you put the trees back in the ground and looked after them they might grow, or if you took a cutting then that could grow. But a man who does not produce sperm and a woman who has no eggs cannot procreate. So to me the cases are different, the link isn’t self-evident and needs some philosophical work.

I don’t think the distinction drawn here is relevant. Here is why: The uprooted trees possess the power of growth now, even when uprooted. It is not that they could get the power back, but that they have it.

To understand this present power in terms of the future possibility of their growth if we put them back in the ground and looked after them strikes me as a bit strained. For example, the tree’s power of growth, which should be a more or less internal characteristic that depends on their biological capacities as trees, would depend on our action. What if no one existed capable of putting them back into the ground? If that possibility is what determines their having the power of growth now, then in its absence they lack the power of growth. But our existence as tree-putters-backers should be external and irrelevant to something like the power of growth of a tree.

Not to mention, if we were to say that the trees possess the power of growth because someone could exist to save them, then the distinction between the two cases falls apart, for in principle there might be a medical procedure (though there is not one now) that resolves all instances of infertility in heterosexual couples.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In such a society, the homosexual acts do not lead to procreation; it is the homosexual acts together with a consummating heterosexual act that leads to procreation. The homosexual act itself is non-procreative in the same sense that a masturbatory act is non-procreative in the example I gave.

Here is (3) again:

1. Homosexual acts use the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation.

The term “thwart” suggests the following reading of the premise: “If a homosexual act occurs, then procreation will not occur”. Your counterexample shows that to be false. You are right that in this case we would need the “necessarily,” and that we won’t get it. But I think this formulation is a bit strong anyway; this suggests to me that it might be better to frame the argument without the term “thwart”. I’ll think about how I would do this.

I used “thwart” for the reason that often people say “It is wrong to use an organ for something other than its purpose.” But that premise is clearly false, since it’s not wrong to use my nose to turn on the microwave. Weird, but not wrong.

The notion of “thwarting” is stronger and more precise. But as we’ve seen, we might not say that homosexual conduct thwarts procreation any more than licking a stamp thwarts eating. I suppose, if we had some further rule that all sexual acts should lead to ejaculation, we might find some sense in which gay sex thwarts procreation (since it would plausibly reduce the man’s capacity to perform).

But … that would be question-begging in the case of lesbianism, and reasonably ad hoc in the case of gay men. Also, it seems like such a premise might not be very plausible, unless someone were already convinced that gay sex is wrong.

This is definitely an area I have to think about a bit more. The procreative/unitive understanding is what the new natural lawyers propose. I tend to side with the old natural lawyers, but the old natural lawyers unfortunately have not published nearly as much work on the matter. I’m not really aware of any recent systematic treatment of sexual ethics from an old natural law perspective.

I’d like to see it too. I glanced at Edward Feser’s blog, but I couldn’t find anything at first glance.

But I think that the procreative dimension itself is not sufficient, at least if it is interpreted as implying that any act that leads to some form of procreation is moral, while any act that does not is immoral. Then there is a minefield of issues one must navigate with things like premarital sex, infertile couples, etc. One could probably make due with the concept of procreation alone if one were to emphasize to a greater extent procreative-type acts rather than procreative tokens. An infertile couple is still essentially procreative in the same sense that a brain-dead patient is still essentially rational, whereas a homosexual couple is no more procreative than a doorknob. (I borrow this point from Bill Vallicella, who notices that there is a difference between infertility and not being fertile.)

Yes, you definitely need to argue from the natural results of the act, not from the expected results of any individual act token.

I agree to some extent. But I think such an argument would still require a spirited attempt as severing the association of happiness with preference satisfaction and emotion.

Agreed. This is actually my favorite hobby horse, in ethics. It’s actually quite easy to convince intelligent students that preference satisfaction has only the slightest association with happiness – though it’s strange that people as intelligent as Peter Singer claim otherwise. Whatever. Emotion is a harder case, partially because – though we were not made to have our current preferences satisfied – we WERE made to feel good emotions.

There are effective arguments here, though. For example, the experience machine, which Nozick hypothesized, that will give us all imaginable good experiences. Surely people wouldn’t identify THIS with happiness.

I do think there are some sins that don’t make people unhappy and dissatisfied (in the modern sense). For example, pirating of music and movies is absolutely rampant today. I have many friends who pirate digital content with no qualms; I even used to do it until I realized what I was doing while reading an examination of conscience sheet. But of course: there is little feeling of consequence when one pirates. One obtains the desired content immediately. And one retains money to spare. I don’t think people who engage in such an activity generally start to feel unhappy.

This is a fascinating example, since it doesn’t involve the deadening of conscience. But I think that it may involve a lack of having an educated conscience in the first place. In our culture, stealing from a huge corporation is often thought of as not stealing from any person.

At any rate, all that we need here is that the sin causes harm to SOMEONE – not necessarily the agent. We’re not talking about being egoists, after all.

 

[polytropos]

There is a debate going on at The Public Discourse about homosexuality. One respondent is Robert George, a new natural lawyer:

Doig 1
George 1
Doig 2
George 2
Cowritten Conclusion

 

[paulrxp]

But that’s question-begging. If we’re trying to PROVE that a certain kind of extramarital sexual behavior is wrong, we cannot start by ASSUMING all extramarital sexual behavior is wrong.

Am I missing something?

No assumptions have to be made if there is an extramarital affair that is sexual in nature.
You’d have to show us an example of an extramarital affair that is sexual in nature that is not sinful. Not what is right or wrong, but is not sinful. The only way it would beg the question is the assumption that these laws against homosexual acts are not necessarily from God, or by God. I would not expect my argument to be accepted by any atheist because of our contrary belief of where this law originated. Even sound reasoning cannot give you faith, but faith can still give you sound reasoning.
The reason why civil laws today can change is because the argument does not begin, reason or refer to God as the highest authority. Unless an argument recognizes that God and his word is supreme, then disputes and difference of interpretation can be changed by man Anything, and I mean anything can be changed, whether it conforms to what God has commanded us or not.

A married person who engages in sexual acts with someone else, either commits adultery if ti’s with a person of the opposite sex, or engages in homosexual acts if it’s with the same sex. What else is left that would not be sinful? Open to suggestions.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No assumptions have to be made if there is an extramarital affair that is sexual in nature.
You’d have to show us an example of an extramarital affair that is sexual in nature that is not sinful. Not what is right or wrong, but is not sinful. The only way it would beg the question is the assumption that these laws against homosexual acts are not necessarily from God, or by God. I would not expect my argument to be accepted by any atheist because of our contrary belief of where this law originated. Even sound reasoning cannot give you faith, but faith can still give you sound reasoning.

To clarify the goal of this thread: I am trying to come up with an argument that effectively proves the wrongness of homosexual acts, but is also reasonably convincing. I myself **don’t **think that atheists are incapable of reasoning, so I’d like to come up with a strong argument to try to convince them.

You say that I’d have to show an example of a non-sinful extramarital affair, to show that you’re begging the question. But that’s just false. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove something. If I’m making an argument that sodomy is wrong, I should not require that my reader already believe that all extramarital sex is wrong – since sodomy between same-sex partners is extramarital sex, that would be arguing in a circle.

This is just the way logic works.

Again, am I missing something? I feel like you might be onto something, but I’m just not understanding what it is, through what you’ve written so far.

 

[ynotzap]

A little circular.

Then I see no reason to worry about procreation, you may as well go with love or as poly says, the act must be unitive.

Though neither provides any reasoning why chastity has one meaning for straights and another for gays.

There is no law written on my heart, nor does my conscience bear witness, that the love of a man for a man is inferior or less natural than the love of a man for a woman. Love is lov

Agreed. We are only discussing here, it’s very rare for anyone to have their mind changed.

response to 2nd ans. How do you interpret love. Do you imply that love justifies sexual activity and that makes it right? Between a man and a man, or just loving the personality of the man without sexual activity? Clarify. How can the act be physically unitive or complimentary?

Response to 3rd ans: Chastity has no meaning for gays or straights if they don’t have the gift of Christian Catholic Faith.

Resp to 4th ans: Mine neither, but we are not really talking about love are we. We are talking about what is un-natural aren’t we? Maybe we are being a little circular in our thinking

 

[Linusthe2nd]

"What to look for in your post before you press submit

Is the post civil and charitable?
Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."Congratulations, you've achieved a personal best by scoring zero on all three :). For the second time in a week you're grounded mister, go to your room and think about what you've done.

Congratulations, you’ve just proved my point in spades.

While you may find it hard to stomach, I and many other Christians do not comprehend why Almighty God would be concerned about what consenting adults in loving relationships do behind closed doors (btw that includes a majority of Catholics where I live, where LGBT marriage has now been legal for nine years)

As you know the Catholic Church isn’t interested in concensus, it is interested in truth. And when speaking of Catholics, you really have to distinguish between those actually practicing and those who have simply signed the Baptismal certificates. And legal does not mean moral, our precious legal leaders did not give us the Ten Commandments, God did.

There would seem to be a long list of other more important things in the world, yet this one topic concerning 3 or 4% of the population gets far more air time than world hunger and world poverty together. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about that.

I’m not angry. It is just that I wish people would do something except evade arguments.

Now I’m sorry if I can’t understand your argument, but sincerely, I don’t and there’s no reason for us to fall out. I can’t spot a smiley olive branch, so this will have to do: :christmastree1:

I think you understand them well enough, you just don’t want to acknowledge that I have answered your objections,which is different from accepting them - as I have pointed out. Instead, you would rather pretend that I keep missing the point.

Cheers

Linus2nd

 

[paulrxp]

To clarify the goal of this thread: I am trying to come up with an argument that effectively proves the wrongness of homosexual acts, but is also reasonably convincing. I myself **don’t **think that atheists are incapable of reasoning, so I’d like to come up with a strong argument to try to convince them.

You say that I’d have to show an example of a non-sinful extramarital affair, to show that you’re begging the question. But that’s just false. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove something. If I’m making an argument that sodomy is wrong, I should not require that my reader already believe that all extramarital sex is wrong – since sodomy between same-sex partners is extramarital sex, that would be arguing in a circle.

This is just the way logic works.

Again, am I missing something? I feel like you might be onto something, but I’m just not understanding what it is, through what you’ve written so far.

I understand what you’re trying to do,nothing wrong with it. Yes, if you’re trying to make someone understand why sodomy, and homosexual acts are sinful to atheists and those who don’t support the Catholic beliefs, then reason and logic is sometimes the only language they understand.

As I’ve stated. No act like sodomy can be proven to be wrong, if it is not bounded by morality. Morality which the faithful believe is to be from God and not from man. The non-believer or atheist therefore can easily believe that logic and reason gives them a stronger argument, however this is because logic and reason are bounded by the rules created by man.

What is the logical reason a man cannot sodomize another man? Similarly, what is the logical reason he cannot sodomize a beast? What difference would it make whether it was a human or beast in a purely logical argument? The answer is, none. Only a semblance of morality would lead one to believe that it is not only unusual, but also unnatural.

This is the weakness of trying to understand faith and moral behavior from a purely rational and logical disposition. The boundaries of behavior , whether deemed good or bad are endless. There is no burden of proof necessary to justify faith and morals. My personal reason for believing sodomy and homosexual acts are wrong is based on the faith and morals I am bounded to.

Until homosexuals can procreate without the opposite sex surrogates or without the aid of science, then the burden of proof will be on those that believe homosexual acts are both reasonable and natural. My proof is that no human life has ever been conceived without a sperm from a male, and an egg from a female. Now, what’s their proof? Other than they disagree with my morals?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I understand what you’re trying to do,nothing wrong with it. Yes, if you’re trying to make someone understand why sodomy, and homosexual acts are sinful to atheists and those who don’t support the Catholic beliefs, then reason and logic is sometimes the only language they understand.

As I’ve stated. No act like sodomy can be proven to be wrong, if it is not bounded by morality. Morality which the faithful believe is to be from God and not from man. The non-believer or atheist therefore can easily believe that logic and reason gives them a stronger argument, however this is because logic and reason are bounded by the rules created by man.

What is the logical reason a man cannot sodomize another man? Similarly, what is the logical reason he cannot sodomize a beast? What difference would it make whether it was a human or beast in a purely logical argument? The answer is, none. Only a semblance of morality would lead one to believe that it is not only unusual, but also unnatural.

This is the weakness of trying to understand faith and moral behavior from a purely rational and logical disposition. The boundaries of behavior , whether deemed good or bad are endless. There is no burden of proof necessary to justify faith and morals. My personal reason for believing sodomy and homosexual acts are wrong is based on the faith and morals I am bounded to.

Until homosexuals can procreate without the opposite sex surrogates or without the aid of science, then the burden of proof will be on those that believe homosexual acts are both reasonable and natural. My proof is that no human life has ever been conceived without a sperm from a male, and an egg from a female. Now, what’s their proof? Other than they disagree with my morals?

The thing is, traditional Catholic theology says there are two kinds of wrong action:

(1) Action that can be known to be wrong by the use of reason alone.
(2) Action that can only be known to be wrong by divine revelation.

Sodomy has traditionally been held to be in the first category, unlike, say, not attending Sunday mass, which is in the second category. If we keep sodomy in the first category, then we can’t just appeal to our faith, when we object to it.

If we put sodomy in the second category, however, then it would not appear to be wrong for non-Christians. Gentiles were impure for eating pork, but they were not justly condemned for eating pork.

(By the way, I strongly disagree that the rules of logic and reasoning are man’s rules. God gave us language, and all the rules of logic and reasoning are embedded in the very structure of language.)

 

[inocente]

I don’t think the distinction drawn here is relevant. Here is why: The uprooted trees possess the power of growth now, even when uprooted. It is not that they could get the power back, but that they have it.

To understand this present power in terms of the future possibility of their growth if we put them back in the ground and looked after them strikes me as a bit strained. For example, the tree’s power of growth, which should be a more or less internal characteristic that depends on their biological capacities as trees, would depend on our action. What if no one existed capable of putting them back into the ground? If that possibility is what determines their having the power of growth now, then in its absence they lack the power of growth. But our existence as tree-putters-backers should be external and irrelevant to something like the power of growth of a tree.

Not to mention, if we were to say that the trees possess the power of growth because someone could exist to save them, then the distinction between the two cases falls apart, for in principle there might be a medical procedure (though there is not one now) that resolves all instances of infertility in heterosexual couples.

Mulling over this, I realize my objection is simply that we are not trees.

Nor are we lower animals. It seems to me that no moral claim based on procreation can treat us as fully human, since it must reduce human relationships to sex, and sex to a mechanical act, dictating which components can be employed and under which circumstance. It must necessarily be clinical, unable to even distinguish between a loveless and a loving marriage.

So my objection turns out to be that procreation, as a concept, leads us away from what it really valuable in human relationships. Or at least, in this heat, that’s the best I can do.

 

[inocente]

How do you interpret love. Do you imply that love justifies sexual activity and that makes it right? Between a man and a man, or just loving the personality of the man without sexual activity? Clarify. How can the act be physically unitive or complimentary?

I can’t see why there should be any difference. I really can’t.

Chastity has no meaning for gays or straights if they don’t have the gift of Christian Catholic Faith.

Do you mean you think only Catholics can control their libidos or something?

Mine neither, but we are not really talking about love are we. We are talking about what is un-natural aren’t we? Maybe we are being a little circular in our thinking

Merriam-Webster defines unnatural as “different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature”. If 4% of people on the planet are homosexual, that’s 280 million people (assuming my arithmetic is OK). That’s equivalent to the entire population of Western Europe. Not sure how so many people can be labeled unnatural.

 

[inocente]

I think you understand them well enough, you just don’t want to acknowledge that I have answered your objections,which is different from accepting them - as I have pointed out. Instead, you would rather pretend that I keep missing the point.

It’s a shame after you had a chance to play nice that you would choose to say that instead.

I don’t believe you can answer my objections, all you’ve done is obfuscate.

See you around.

 

[Amandil]

It’s a shame after you had a chance to play nice that you would choose to say that instead.

I don’t believe you can answer my objections, all you’ve done is obfuscate.

See you around.

Obfuscate?

Is that the pot calling the kettle black?

You’ve sorely mischaracterized Thomas building strawmen the whole way.

FYI: I showed your comments both to my friend(a Catholic) and another acquaintance (a Baptist), both scholars on Aquinas, and to put it charitably, both of them said that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

That you wrap quotation marks around the passage yet do not cite your source or provide a link is evidence by itself of the specious nature of it.

 

[polytropos]

Mulling over this, I realize my objection is simply that we are not trees.

I’m not sure such an objection cuts any ice. To be sure, we aren’t trees. But the point is to understand what it means to possess a power essentially. Prima facie it does not seem to have to do with being able to exercise that power right now or even in the future. To make an exception for humans without giving principled grounds for it suggests special pleading. (Though human examples abound as well. There is, for example, the comatose patient, who is still essentially rational, even though we do not know whether or not he will come out of his coma.)

Nor are we lower animals. It seems to me that no moral claim based on procreation can treat us as fully human, since it must reduce human relationships to sex, and sex to a mechanical act, dictating which components can be employed and under which circumstance. It must necessarily be clinical, unable to even distinguish between a loveless and a loving marriage.

Well, this is a point I have made in saying that I think the original argument suffers from premise (1), in that I don’t think that procreation is a sufficient condition for sexual morality. I would agree that to say that procreation is a sufficient condition for sexual morality would treat us as less than fully human.

But to say that it is a necessary condition does not do so. To say that the procreative dimension of sex must be in order for sex to be moral is not to deny that there is more to sex than procreation.

The logical issue here is: If x ought to be F and G, then there is a problem if it is not F, and this is true even though the morality and importance of x is not reducible to F (because it also ought to be G).

 

[paulrxp]

The thing is, traditional Catholic theology says there are two kinds of wrong action:

(1) Action that can be known to be wrong by the use of reason alone.
(2) Action that can only be known to be wrong by divine revelation.

Sodomy has traditionally been held to be in the first category, unlike, say, not attending Sunday mass, which is in the second category. If we keep sodomy in the first category, then we can’t just appeal to our faith, when we object to it.

If we put sodomy in the second category, however, then it would not appear to be wrong for non-Christians. Gentiles were impure for eating pork, but they were not justly condemned for eating pork.
)

The Catholic Church has held sodomy in the second category based on the New and Old testament teachings. Like many of her faith and moral teachings, they are not changed and affected by time and trends. Sure, disciplines and practices will be changed, but morality in unison with faith reveals the truth of Gods word.

Even in logical reasoning and mathematical proof, something has to be true all of the time and in every instance to really be true. Disproving a proposition only requires one instance of that proposition to be false.

The humanists argue that the Church has been wrong in the past, therefore in this faith and moral belief on homosexuality, surely she can be wrong again. Yes, the Church may have once believed the world was flat. Was that a moral belief? Was it a teaching and belief instilled into the hearts of man by God? To try to prove a moral belief is false based on past errs in reason and science still does not prove that moral belief false. This is where the secularists miss the mark. The only way to change and eliminate a moral truth, is to eliminate that which created it, God. This is what the secular world has for a few hundred years has attempted to do, remove the social and moral order established by God and Christiandom, namely the moral teachings of Catholicism.

If we keep sodomy in the first category, then we can’t just appeal to our faith, when we object to it.

Exactly what I’ve stated before, and you’ve stated it pretty clear. If you arrive at a belief and opinion based on category method #1, faith will not necessary dissuade you from personal opinion and your belief that something is true, even if morally it’s false based on the natural law. Not only is morality put aside, any belief can be changed, because the weight of ones opinion is given the means to arrive at a reasonable/logical understanding, a logical understanding often at odds with ones faith.

Even so, reason does not always lead to justification, it most certainly does not lead to salvation, which is really what this is all about, at least to us believers.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s a shame after you had a chance to play nice that you would choose to say that instead.

I don’t believe you can answer my objections, all you’ve done is obfuscate.

See you around.

Being nice does not consist in denying the truth. If defending the truth of what one has said or not said is obfuscation then I am guilty.

Adio’s amigo.

Linus2nd

 

[Amandil]

Being nice does not consist in denying the truth. If defending the truth of what one has said or not said is obfuscation then I am guilty.

Adio’s amigo.

Linus2nd

Over the last several hours I have been getting a serious education involving “inocente’s” source in regards to Aquinas.

It appears that he has latched on a view of the “New Natural Law” theory which severely distorts Thomistic philosophy but claims that it is central to their theory.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I can’t see why there should be any difference. I really can’t.

Do you mean you think only Catholics can control their libidos or something?

Merriam-Webster defines unnatural as “different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature”. If 4% of people on the planet are homosexual, that’s 280 million people (assuming my arithmetic is OK). That’s equivalent to the entire population of Western Europe. Not sure how so many people can be labeled unnatural.

Approximately 25% of North Americans are myopic. Extrapolated from that number, about 1.75 billion people in the world are myopic.

You aren’t arguing that sheer prevalence is sufficient to make a condition ‘natural,’ are you? The point being made is that there is a kind of naturally optimal state for natural beings. The definition of “natural” with regard to human traits, and those of living creatures generally, is the range of those traits which make the being a representatively ‘good’ example of that kind of creature.

When the bubonic plague rendered 30% of humans in Europe (20-30 million) incapacitated with swollen lymph nodes and compromised lymphatic systems, we would not claim bubonic plague was ‘natural’ to humans and thereby a ‘good’ merely because of prevalence.

This is, again, a confusion between natural law as a moral foundation for a system of ethics based upon the ‘good’ as derived from what it essentially means to be human (the natural optimal state of a human being) and the naturalistic fallacy which wrongly concludes things are good merely because they exist in nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Over the last several hours I have been getting a serious education involving “inocente’s” source in regards to Aquinas.

It appears that he has latched on a view of the “New Natural Law” theory which severely distorts Thomistic philosophy but claims that it is central to their theory.

I don’t know about that but he has a definite aversion to any notion of natural law, scientific or moral. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has a nice discussion on natural law which does justice to Thomas and contrasts his notion with other notions.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

I can’t see why there should be any difference. I really can’t.

Do you mean you think only Catholics can control their libidos or something?

Merriam-Webster defines unnatural as “different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature”. If 4% of people on the planet are homosexual, that’s 280 million people (assuming my arithmetic is OK). That’s equivalent to the entire population of Western Europe. Not sure how so many people can be labeled unnatural.

Ans to lst statement : there is nothing wrong with one man’s love for another. If the implies that there is shared sexual activity between them then it becomes morally wrong, and naturally wrong It is morally wrong ( I speak of the act of homosexuallity) because the Author of the Eternal law designed man to follow certain norms of behavior found in the Decalogue. This is a matter of faith, and a matter of ethics, ruled by the laws of right and wrong.
It is also a matter of natural law (also designed by God who created it,) It violates man’s rational nature by acting irrationally. By nature homosexuals are perverting the sex act using their sex organs wrongly for by natural design sex organs are complimentary for a specific purpose, procreation. this is a rational act, to act with natural purpose.

To determine the moral law there is a general principle, a principle that determines right and wrong governing man’s conduct: What ever is conducive to the objective well being of the individual, and society is good, and right, what ever is not objectively conducive to the well being of the individual and society is wrong.
Applying this principle to the homo-sexual act, the act is not objectively conducive to the well being of the the individual or society because he perverts the sex act and in doing so he is acting irrationally, he also initiates diseases into society as a result, there is plenty of evidence to substantiate the claim. They also pervert the natural marriage between a man and a woman. They introduce into society a very unatural situation when it comes to natural propagation, sperm banks and ovary banks, they made it a commodity.

Beside the natural aspect there is the moral aspect. To attain man’s ultimate end, happiness he must conform his actions to the moral laws. Homo-sexual acts are in violation to those moral laws made by God. For those that don’t know the moral law can not be accountable of the guilt implied, unless it is culpable ignorance. So the homo sexual act is in violation of both the natural law, and the moral law, and is not conducive to the well being of society. Societies well being is dependent on the existence of the individual, no individual no society, no well being.

Ans to 2nd question: Take the whole statement in context: Christian Catholic Faith, not just part Catholic. For Christians Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan by giving us His Holy Spirit who makes it possible to by His help, grace to conquer man’s proclivity or leaning towards uncontrolled sensuallity lost by Adam. By man’s uncontrolled sensuality can be known as his libido. You don’t understand this either because you don’t understand Catholic doctrine, that’s why I used the terms Christian Catholic Faith. Your Baptist to my knowledge may not have this doctrine, and from your answers I would say not. So how can you judge if you don’t understand, and I wouldn’t expect you to, it would be unfair. But this is where I stand with my Faith and knowledge, and I hope I am very consistent with Catholic Church teaching. It is not the Pope who makes the rules, it is Christ, and the Pope is his physical representative with the power of infallibility endowed upon him when he is teaching faith and morals, with Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition constituting our deposit of Faith.