Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Kurisu35712]

Just as a disclaimer, I am in no way particularly knowledgeable of philosophical theory or study, outside of what I read on these forums. I’m just offering my (name removed by moderator)ut for some of the posts brought up in this thread.

I feel as though a lot of miscommunication is circulating due to a lack of understanding of the general Catholic interpretation of words, and I would like to try to clarify this for the sake of furthering the discussion.

Inocente’s position (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be that two men/two women can love each other as a man and woman can love each other, and that these instances of love are all equally valid. Expanding on that train of thought, each of these instances of mutual love are inalienable in the sense that it is wrong for an external force to forbid or otherwise force the two consenting individuals from expressing the affection and respect they have for each other.

Please don’t feel as if I’m putting words into your mouth, this is just how I (and presumably others) interpreted your opinion on the topic.

To summarize the Church’s position on homosexuality vs. homosexual acts, the Church holds that homosexual acts are inherently sinful, along with masturbation, contraception, adultery, fornication, etc. as they do not and can not in and of themselves result in procreation between a man and woman validly married to one another. The Church teaches, as mentioned earlier, that sexual acts are permitted only between a married couple. Married couple being defined as two members of the opposite sex bound in holy matrimony.
Homosexuals, on the other hand, are not condemned as they are neither sins nor actions. They are humans and the Church teaches that they are to be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other human. Homosexuals are humans who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex.

Back to my interpretation of your position, I would agree with you in the position that a man can love another man, woman another woman, etc. based upon the Catholic understanding of the word love. What needs to be clarified is that, to Catholic understanding, love does not imply or necessitate sexual relations between people, nor does a loving bond between two people condone or excuse sexual relations between them. Catholic teaching is that sexual relations are permitted only between a husband and wife, and that sexual union is driven by the marital love between them.

I hope I’m not distorting anything or saying anything untrue, so please correct me if I did.

 

[Kurisu35712]

The standard natural law argument against homosexual activity runs something like this:

1. The purpose of the sexual organs is procreation.
2. It is wrong to use an organ in a way that thwarts its purpose.
3. Homosexual acts use the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation.
4. Therefore, homosexual acts are wrong.

I hope I have clearly and fairly expressed the argument, and I’m open to revisions.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that Premise 3 is false. Sodomy could be used to thwart procreation, but it could be used in other ways too. For example, it’s conceivable to participate in homosexual acts, but only ejaculate with one’s opposite sex spouse. It is hard to understand how this would be thwarting procreation – however otherwise objectionable the course of action is!

Now, despite the flaw in this particular argument, I believe its conclusion is true – both because of the my own instinctive moral sense, and because of the revelation of Scripture and Tradition.

I would say that in order for premise 1 to be true in relation to premise 3, you would need to also stipulate that procreation is defined as something along the lines of “sexual union that is inherently (biologically) capable of producing offspring” in some way adding that even infertile members of a couple would still be capable of producing offspring biologically should the reason for their infertility be removed or cured.

For example, the reason that an infertile couple would still be able to have procreative intercourse is that the sex organs of the two would be biologically compatible even if the gametes themselves were not properly functioning. Or something along those lines.

 

[Amandil]

I would say that in order for premise 1 to be true in relation to premise 3, you would need to also stipulate that procreation is defined as something along the lines of “sexual union that is inherently (biologically) capable of producing offspring” in some way adding that even infertile members of a couple would still be capable of producing offspring biologically should the reason for their infertility be removed or cured.

For example, the reason that an infertile couple would still be able to have procreative intercourse is that the sex organs of the two would be biologically compatible even if the gametes themselves were not properly functioning. Or something along those lines.

What needs to be clarified is the idea that any act which is not the conjugal act is not sex. It is the act of pursuing sexual pleasure by a means which is not sex, but only like to it in a superficial way. So even if there is an instance of actual sex between a couple who is infertile in some way they are not violating the natural law because they are doing something which is naturally procreative.

But the idea that any genital stimulation in which sexual pleasure is sought for its own end can possibly be regarded as “sex” has to be rejected.

 

[Kurisu35712]

That’s much closer to the idea I was trying to get across. Thank you!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would say that in order for premise 1 to be true in relation to premise 3, you would need to also stipulate that procreation is defined as something along the lines of “sexual union that is inherently (biologically) capable of producing offspring” in some way adding that even infertile members of a couple would still be capable of producing offspring biologically should the reason for their infertility be removed or cured.

For example, the reason that an infertile couple would still be able to have procreative intercourse is that the sex organs of the two would be biologically compatible even if the gametes themselves were not properly functioning. Or something along those lines.

OK, this makes sense.

But this point is easily made if we don’t insist that sodomy is wrong because it uses organs for something other than their purpose. If sodomy is wrong for some other reason, then the infertile couples are fine, even if their actions do not have the natural consequence of children.

I think we just make everything more difficult for ourselves when we talk about the purposes of organs, instead of the purpose of a person.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I see what you’re trying to say, though you’ve actually expressed two very different ideas in the bolded portions: natural as optimal and natural as typical. Obviously the typical human isn’t optimal, so these conceptions can’t be the same.

Also, using “natural” in the latter sense, I assume you are speaking of the “average” healthy human when you speak of a good representation. Even assuming that we have a non-ambiguous definition of “healthy”, this is problematic. What is the average human? Is it the one who has the average height, or weight, or longevity, or heart rate? Those are almost certainly different people. Is it the one that has the average of all of these traits? That person probably doesn’t exist.

The notion of an average is difficult to define when you’re dealing with a discrete data set with multiple dimensions (physical traits) in mind.

No, I am not getting at “average” as the “non-ambiguous definition of healthy.” In fact, healthy would be insufficient to define all of the good-making characteristics of a human being, since someone with an intellectual disability could still be exceptionally healthy.

The other problem with “average” is that good-making qualities might, in fact, be relatively under-represented in any population or sampling.

The idea I am getting at is that “good-making” qualities are not those qualities represented as average in a population, but those qualities that make us definably “human.”

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

OK, you’ve definitely convinced me that even if my counterexample to #3 works, it involves muddying the waters in an unhelpful way. The counterexample need not muddy the waters, however. For suppose we simplify the case to the point where adultery is completely absent. Suppose, in other words, we consider the following argument about masturbation (not about homosexuality).

1. The purpose of the sexual organs is procreation and unity.
2. It is wrong to use an organ in a way that thwarts its purpose.
3. Masturbation uses the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation.
4. Therefore, masturbation is wrong.

Now consider the following proposed counterexample to premise #3: It is possible to masturbate (not to orgasm) without thwarting the purpose of the sexual organs, since one can afterward engage in any sort of licit sexual behavior in a way that tends toward procreation and unity.

Your counterexample is foreplay, not masturbation.

Further, masturbation as such also thwarts the orientation of the sex organs toward unity–not just procreation: one is not uniting to another while one is doing it.

So #3 should read “Masturbation uses the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation and unity.”

#4 follows validly.

So my point is not that this counterexample is true. My point is that the counterexample is plausible – and it is especially plausible to people who are not already Catholic. In order to oppose the counterexample, one must subscribe to the belief that any form of intentionally produced sexual pleasure not in the context of marriage is wrong. This proposition is true, but it’s also question-begging in the context of the argument.

All one needs to oppose the counterexample is #1 above, which does not entail marriage: simply the fact that sex in its essence unites, which I think is indisputable. One does not need the belief you highlight.

(The masturbation example is not idle speculation, by the way. The argument above is often made to convince people that masturbation is wrong, and it just doesn’t establish that point in people’s minds, unless they already believe masturbation is wrong. Not helpful).

I’m all for finding the most convincing approach, but validity and invalidity is a technical matter and very different. And just because you cannot convince someone of a moral truth who is invested in the opposite behavior does not mean that your argument is invalid.

Now, it’s true that the argument against homosexuality doesn’t involve question-begging, to that extent. But your revised argument does require a require a person to believe that the relevant unity cannot be achieved apart from openness to procreation, which is awfully close to already believing that homosexual sex is wrong!

If they draw the right conclusion from established premises, it is not false simply because they don’t like where the premises lead.

Now this is the sort of thing that I just honestly don’t understand. I think gay rights apologists are quite right to respond that “thwarting” procreation is a very different thing than simply “not engaging in” procreation. Even if the purpose of the tongue is to taste, it does not defeat the purpose of the tongue if I use it to lick envelopes. And while I am licking envelopes I cannot be eating.

I used “thwart” because it was the word you used.

It is indisputable that homosexual acts in and of themselves with the sex organ(s) are incapable of procreating, producing new life. Yet they are being used in a context, as well we know today, supposedly equivalent to “marriage” which involves union . . . and procreation. The male and female sex organs are clearly meant for each other. And the anus, as clinical experience makes evident, is clearly not meant for receiving the penis in sex.

Plus you’re failing to make at least two sets of distinctions:

(1) Essential use (penis for vaginal sex), accidental use (use your penis to move a marble across the floor), and abuse (homosexual sex).
There is such a thing as an abuse of something. If a troubled teen beats the wall with their arm until it is bloodied and broken, that is an abuse of the arm, not an alternative use. Someone can use their nose for any number of things besides smelling, but using it to snort coke is an abuse, not an alternative use.

(2) moral bearing vs no moral bearing
The gay activists argument makes some sense if one holds there is no morality in the sexual sphere, so one can use their body in whatever way they want. If one holds that there is any morality in the sexual sphere at all, you can’t justify something simply by saying that it is an alternative use.

It is just false to say that a person, while he is engaged in homosexual activity, is “incapable” of procreation – or rather he is incapable only so long as he continues uninterrupted in the sexual activity, just as I am incapable of eating only so long as I am licking envelopes. Since no one has gay sex continually without stopping throughout life, no one is thereby disenabled from procreating by having gay sex.

The argument isn’t that the person is incapable of procreating. It is that the acts are incapable of procreation, which is indisputable. And these acts are in the moral sphere. We are judging the morality of acts, not the person.

I feel like, in order to be intellectually honest, we must cede that objection to the gay rights advocates, and come up with a better argument.

I don’t think so at all. But I am all for finding the most convincing approach.

 

[Oreoracle]

The idea I am getting at is that “good-making” qualities are not those qualities represented as average in a population, but those qualities that make us definably “human.”

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Having “unnatural” traits makes one less of a human?

It seems more straightforward to say that good traits are those that tend to increase the chance of passing on one’s genes. Those traits are “natural” in the sense that they are favored by natural selection.

 

[inocente]

“Gossip” is to speak negatively about someone without their knowledge.

It’s still gossip when you get found out.

*We neither hid nothing nor spoke falsehoods about you.

Well, whatever you passed off as Aquinas is not Aquinas but is based upon NNLT. *

There’s a “falsehood” right there!!! I’d never heard of NNLT until you mentioned it.

The catholicculture link doesn’t work and the iep.edu link is simply you committing confirmation bias.

Try this:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2793

I don’t understand the confirmation bias bit, you only have to read Thomas for yourself, it’s all online.

This will be my final post to you because I just heard back from my other acquaintance, who is also a Baptist minister, this is what he had to say regarding your comment:

Between your own recognition of the distortion of Thomas’ views rather than comment on Aquinas I would offer this thought instead: your friend seems to be committing a genetic fallacy of some sort. Even if he correctly represented Thomas (and, again, it’s obvious he did not), there is a world of difference between “the Church’s teaching on natural law” and Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy. I say that fully aware of the great weight placed on Thomas’ opinion. My point is that even if Thomas were to be shown to be in error or this or that point, it would not follow that Church teaching is therefore incorrect. For once again, assuming that the foolishness your friend offered were the actual Thomas (side bar: any time someone says something plainly stupid and claims that to be the opinion of a philosopher of Aquinas’ caliber, that should tell you an awful lot about that own person’s intellectual capacities), it is still the case that the Church’s discussions on natural law today are nothing like that at all.

I think you’ve totally wasted your “friend’s” time by misrepresenting what I said, which is still on the thread for all to see. My comment was that Thomas’ reasoning is good but based on wrong data. Which means his argument is no longer secure in the light of what we now know, not that he is necessarily in error. I never said the Church is incorrect, how your “friend” got that idea I can only speculate. But I have a good idea since you have consistently failed to discuss the subject and have instead engaged in inuendo and ad hominem throughout.

 

[inocente]

Just as a disclaimer, I am in no way particularly knowledgeable of philosophical theory or study, outside of what I read on these forums. I’m just offering my (name removed by moderator)ut for some of the posts brought up in this thread.

I feel as though a lot of miscommunication is circulating due to a lack of understanding of the general Catholic interpretation of words, and I would like to try to clarify this for the sake of furthering the discussion.

Inocente’s position (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be that two men/two women can love each other as a man and woman can love each other, and that these instances of love are all equally valid. Expanding on that train of thought, each of these instances of mutual love are inalienable in the sense that it is wrong for an external force to forbid or otherwise force the two consenting individuals from expressing the affection and respect they have for each other.

Please don’t feel as if I’m putting words into your mouth, this is just how I (and presumably others) interpreted your opinion on the topic.

To summarize the Church’s position on homosexuality vs. homosexual acts, the Church holds that homosexual acts are inherently sinful, along with masturbation, contraception, adultery, fornication, etc. as they do not and can not in and of themselves result in procreation between a man and woman validly married to one another. The Church teaches, as mentioned earlier, that sexual acts are permitted only between a married couple. Married couple being defined as two members of the opposite sex bound in holy matrimony.
Homosexuals, on the other hand, are not condemned as they are neither sins nor actions. They are humans and the Church teaches that they are to be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other human. Homosexuals are humans who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex.

Back to my interpretation of your position, I would agree with you in the position that a man can love another man, woman another woman, etc. based upon the Catholic understanding of the word love. What needs to be clarified is that, to Catholic understanding, love does not imply or necessitate sexual relations between people, nor does a loving bond between two people condone or excuse sexual relations between them. Catholic teaching is that sexual relations are permitted only between a husband and wife, and that sexual union is driven by the marital love between them.

I hope I’m not distorting anything or saying anything untrue, so please correct me if I did.

That’s a fair summary and I understand the Church’s position, while disagreeing with it.

The issue for me is the procreation argument. Ancient philosophers divide the soul in various ways, for instance Plato’s reason/appetite/spirit, but they are all fairly similar to the modern division of the mind between the unconscious and conscious. The unconscious mind is the intuitive, emotional, nonverbal, contextual part. The conscious mind is where rule based, verbal, abstract, reasoning resides. The unconscious is, very roughly, similar to other primates, but the conscious is what puts us apart and makes us the rational animal.

So modern and ancient ideas are quiet similar.

When Paul says “their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them”, we can see this as the emotional (unconscious) and rational (conscious) minds wrestling out what is the right thing to do. There is a lot of research which confirms that this is indeed how we make moral decisions.

So after that long introduction, my issue is that the procreation argument appeals only to the ruled based rational mind, and is therefore highly mechanical and cannot speak of love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So after that long introduction, my issue is that the procreation argument appeals only to the ruled based rational mind, and is therefore highly mechanical and cannot speak of love.

I think you are confusing being “rational” with being governed by “rules”. Plato and Aristotle did not consider ethics a system of fixed rules, but they did think we needed to act rationally, and that rational action was moral action.

This does not preclude love or desire. Plato thought the rational soul had its own distinctive type of eros (desire), and that we would do best to follow this desire wherever it leads. If you find a Christian who is just following rules, that person is not holy – he or she is a holiness wanna-be. The truly holy Christian is the one whose desires and passions lead him to do the right and loving thing.

Now, as for arguments, surely they have nothing to do with telling us how to feel. But they can guide our judgment of what is right. Once we know what is right, we have a choice: (a) Be a mere “rules-follower”, or (b) Beg God for the desire to do what we know to be right.

The person who has that desire is virtuous. The person who doesn’t have that desire isn’t virtuous, even if they’re doing the right thing.

 

[inocente]

I think you are confusing being “rational” with being governed by “rules”. Plato and Aristotle did not consider ethics a system of fixed rules, but they did think we needed to act rationally, and that rational action was moral action.

This does not preclude love or desire. Plato thought the rational soul had its own distinctive type of eros (desire), and that we would do best to follow this desire wherever it leads. If you find a Christian who is just following rules, that person is not holy – he or she is a holiness wanna-be. The truly holy Christian is the one whose desires and passions lead him to do the right and loving thing.

Now, as for arguments, surely they have nothing to do with telling us how to feel. But they can guide our judgment of what is right. Once we know what is right, we have a choice: (a) Be a mere “rules-follower”, or (b) Beg God for the desire to do what we know to be right.

The person who has that desire is virtuous. The person who doesn’t have that desire isn’t virtuous, even if they’re doing the right thing.

I’m only talking of the procreation rule. For instance, a married couple have children. Good says the procreation rule. But the marriage is loveless and the couple separate leaving the children in the middle of a nasty divorce. Happens a lot these days.

Now suppose two homosexuals love each other and remain together for life. The procreation rule says they cannot show their love physically. Because, it says, that is lust, not love. But precisely the same demonstration of love between a heterosexual couple is love, not lust. Says the procreation rule.

I’m saying it appeals only to rule-based reasoning, it has no emotional component, and so it treats us as less than human.

If you were not aware of it, you might like to read a paper published by the Church in opposition to LGBT marriage prior to the votes in Canada and Spain ten years back. The authors chose not to give procreation a lead role. Whether that helped or hindered their case I don’t know, but two thirds of the largely Catholic population here sided with LGBT marriage. That’s not overly relevant to this thread, but what is relevant is the logic I heard most was simply “live and let live”, and that won the day. That argument, unlike the procreation rule, has both a rational and emotional component.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m only talking of the procreation rule. For instance, a married couple have children. Good says the procreation rule. But the marriage is loveless and the couple separate leaving the children in the middle of a nasty divorce. Happens a lot these days.

I don’t know what you mean by “the creation rule” saying such a married couple are acting rightly. They aren’t. It is sinful to have children without the firm intention of raising them together as a couple. It is likely more severe of a sin than sodomy.

Now suppose two homosexuals love each other and remain together for life. The procreation rule says they cannot show their love physically. Because, it says, that is lust, not love. But precisely the same demonstration of love between a heterosexual couple is love, not lust. Says the procreation rule.

“Precisely the same” demonstration of love? Without getting graphic here, the relevant sex acts aren’t similar.

I’m saying it appeals only to rule-based reasoning, it has no emotional component, and so it treats us as less than human.

I’m not sure what to say here. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that one cannot pretend that an *argument *against homosexual activity is not a pastoral *approach *to homosexual individuals. On the other, the argument doesn’t exclude such a compassionate approach.

I don’t love a sinner by simply condemning his sin. But if I don’t condemn what I know to be a sin, I can’t genuinely love (in a compassionate way) the sinner that sins in such a way.

If you were not aware of it, you might like to read a paper published by the Church in opposition to LGBT marriage prior to the votes in Canada and Spain ten years back. The authors chose not to give procreation a lead role. Whether that helped or hindered their case I don’t know, but two thirds of the largely Catholic population here sided with LGBT marriage. That’s not overly relevant to this thread, but what is relevant is the logic I heard most was simply “live and let live”, and that won the day. That argument, unlike the procreation rule, has both a rational and emotional component.

The Church DOES teach that we live and let live, since the Church allows the state to make the laws. But the Church does not teach that we stand back idly and allow people to damage their bodies and their souls – this is why we, as Christians, must attempt to influence the laws. It is not unjust to outlaw practices that harm people, even if only certain portions of the population desire to engage in these practices.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From Part III, Article 6 if the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I. “Male and Female He Created Them . . .”

2331 "God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . … God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."114

“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;115 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;116 "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."117

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. the harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

2334 "In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."118 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."119

2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. the union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."120 All human generations proceed from this union.121

2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."122 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.123
The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

---

114 FC 11.

115 ⇒ Gen 1:27.

116 ⇒ Gen 1:28.

117 ⇒ Gen 5:1-2.

118 FC 22; Cf. GS 49 # 2.

119 MD 6.

120 ⇒ Gen 2:24.

121 Cf. ⇒ Gen 4:1-2, ⇒ 25-26; ⇒ 5:1.

122 ⇒ Mt 5:27-28.

123 Cf. ⇒ Mt 19:6.

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

‘’ God gave us Ten Commandments, he did not give us Ten Suggestions. " Ted Kopple

God did not ask us to take a vote. He gaves us a brain to observe that his Natural Law, as expressed by the Ten Commandments, fulfilled the Law of Love, which is the greatest Commandment of all. We cannot claim to be obeying the Law of Love and at the same time violate the Natural Law written in our hearts and seconded by the Ten Commandments and the commands of the Sermon on the Mount.

Linus2nd

---

Previous - Next

---

Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

From Part III, Article 6 if the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I. “Male and Female He Created Them . . .”

2331 "God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . … God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."114

“God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”;115 He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”;116 "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."117

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. the harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

2334 "In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."118 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."119

2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. the union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."120 All human generations proceed from this union.121

2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."122 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.123
The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

---

114 FC 11.

115 ⇒ Gen 1:27.

116 ⇒ Gen 1:28.

117 ⇒ Gen 5:1-2.

118 FC 22; Cf. GS 49 # 2.

119 MD 6.

120 ⇒ Gen 2:24.

121 Cf. ⇒ Gen 4:1-2, ⇒ 25-26; ⇒ 5:1.

122 ⇒ Mt 5:27-28.

123 Cf. ⇒ Mt 19:6.

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

‘’ God gave us Ten Commandments, he did not give us Ten Suggestions. " Ted Kopple

God did not ask us to take a vote. He gaves us a brain to observe that his Natural Law, as expressed by the Ten Commandments, fulfilled the Law of Love, which is the greatest Commandment of all. We cannot claim to be obeying the Law of Love and at the same time violate the Natural Law written in our hearts and seconded by the Ten Commandments and the commands of the Sermon on the Mount.

Linus2nd

---

Previous - Next

---

Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Thanks. That definitely summarizes the Catholic Faith I hold.

 

[inocente]

This will be my final post to you because I just heard back from my other acquaintance, who is also a Baptist minister, this is what he had to say regarding your comment:

It occurs to me that if believed, the statement by your “acquaintance” would bring the Baptist faith into disrepute.

Please tell him that I’ve never heard a real minister use such derogatory language about anyone, let alone one he has never even met. There’s no Baptist community I know of who would even baptize someone who so obviously doesn’t have a clue what it means to accept Christ as his personal savior.

Please don’t misrepresent me, quote me verbatim. Thanks very much. God bless.

 

[inocente]

I don’t know what you mean by “the creation rule” saying such a married couple are acting rightly. They aren’t. It is sinful to have children without the firm intention of raising them together as a couple. It is likely more severe of a sin than sodomy.

Then it sure isn’t given enough air time.

“Precisely the same” demonstration of love? Without getting graphic here, the relevant sex acts aren’t similar.

I was hoping you’d say that as I think it proves my point - only by thinking in terms of machine parts do they differ. That’s the only difference, the meaning to the couple as a expression of their love is the same.

*I’m not sure what to say here. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that one cannot pretend that an *argument **against homosexual activity is not a pastoral *approach *to homosexual individuals. On the other, the argument doesn’t exclude such a compassionate approach.

I don’t love a sinner by simply condemning his sin. But if I don’t condemn what I know to be a sin, I can’t genuinely love (in a compassionate way) the sinner that sins in such a way.

The Church DOES teach that we live and let live, since the Church allows the state to make the laws. But the Church does not teach that we stand back idly and allow people to damage their bodies and their souls – this is why we, as Christians, must attempt to influence the laws. It is not unjust to outlaw practices that harm people, even if only certain portions of the population desire to engage in these practices.

All I can say is that this style of argumentation sends a mixed message. In terms of your objective, let me put it like this.

We increasingly live in a multicultural world. We understand (or should) that everyone is entitled to the same rights and freedoms regardless of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (I’m quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Society doesn’t have many moral absolutes these days, but to me and many others that is an absolute. It appeals to both the rational and emotional parts of our souls. Live and let live.

So, starting at that gold standard, why should a couple who love each other and wish to remain together for always be told they do not have the moral right and freedom to physically express their love?

I’m saying that for me and many others it must be a pretty watertight case before we’ll dilute that categorical imperative, before we’ll agree to make it in any way relative or consequentialist.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Fr. of Jazz,

My general response to your comments is as follows. I think Aristotle – despite being one of the very first ethicists in western philosophy – had the idea from which all other ethics should follow. He perceived that any sort of ethics not based on the premise of happiness (in some form) would fail, precisely because non-eudaimonistic ethics fails to be motivating. If you separate out happiness from duty, you have a conflict between rationality and obligation that is indefensible. Certainly, it is indefensible in a universe one takes to be created by God. In our universe, that which makes us good must also (tend to) make us happy.

Now this is certainly no reason to be a utilitarian, as Aristotle, the Stoics, and Aquinas all maintained. Happiness is the characteristic human good, but it is not a readily quantifiable good. If you want to be happy, you must be virtuous.

(I’m guessing I’m preaching to the choir here, but I’m also interested if you disagree.)

Now we might make an argument against sodomy that stopped at the purposes of body parts. This would be an interesting argument, for academic purposes. But it would not be capable of convincing anyone, certainly not those who are heavily tempted to sodomy (or entrenched within a life predicated on the activity). I myself take it for granted, then, that our arguments in this respect ought to refer directly to happiness, since it is *that *kind of argument that can genuinely change a person’s actions.

Now if Kant, for example, were to propose a flawless argument for some action’s being wrong, I think the rational response is to ask whether the action leads to unhappiness (properly understood). If Kant can’t prove that, then Kant can’t prove that it’s rational to stop the action. “Wrong” becomes an abstract predicate lacking is descriptive content.

Not just some nit-pickiness…

Your counterexample is foreplay, not masturbation.

Not true. It’s wrong for a man, on his own (that was the case I meant to describe), to stimulate his genitals with the purpose of sexual pleasure, even if he does not orgasm. Why? Because he is masturbating.

So #3 should read “Masturbation uses the sexual organs in ways that thwart procreation and unity.”

That’s a difficult premise to defend, again, unless you already agree with Catholic ethics. What sort of secular evidence is there that masturbating on one’s own (without ejaculating) decreases the bond between a man and a woman who later make love? Maybe there is some evidence on this, I suppose. I certainly *hope *it could be demonstrated.

I’m all for finding the most convincing approach, but validity and invalidity is a technical matter and very different. And just because you cannot convince someone of a moral truth who is invested in the opposite behavior does not mean that your argument is invalid.

Of course not – nor does it mean that your argument is unsound. But the goal of an argument is to convince.

I used “thwart” because it was the word you used.

I used it because it makes the argument as good as it can be, in my eyes. Not very convincing, but as plausible as possible. If you have another word to suggest, I’m all ears.

Plus you’re failing to make at least two sets of distinctions:

(1) Essential use (penis for vaginal sex), accidental use (use your penis to move a marble across the floor), and abuse (homosexual sex).
There is such a thing as an abuse of something. If a troubled teen beats the wall with their arm until it is bloodied and broken, that is an abuse of the arm, not an alternative use. Someone can use their nose for any number of things besides smelling, but using it to snort coke is an abuse, not an alternative use.

I’m really glad you brought this up. It would make the original argument much better, I think. Of course, it is a thorny philosophical problem what sorts of uses are abuses – and this, I think, can only be settled by appealing to happiness. There are clear cases: It is abusive to intentionally and needlessly amputate your arm, but it isn’t abusive to use your arm as a substitute tape measure. But the marginal cases are problematic, and that’s why I feel we would have to use happiness as an heuristic.

(2) moral bearing vs no moral bearing
The gay activists argument makes some sense if one holds there is no morality in the sexual sphere, so one can use their body in whatever way they want. If one holds that there is any morality in the sexual sphere at all, you can’t justify something simply by saying that it is an alternative use.

Again, this is an excellent point. In the sexual ethics seminar I attended several years ago, I remember bringing up the point that sex CANNOT be casual. Even liberal Americans believe this, since they believe (for example) that even apparently “voluntary” sex with children is abuse. If sex could be casual, then one could argue that a child could agree to sex, just like a child can agree to eating a sandwich (a casual activity).

But this doesn’t conclusively prove the point against sodomy, since one could claim that the act of sodomy is meaningful and unitive, despite not being procreative.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I was hoping you’d say that as I think it proves my point - only by thinking in terms of machine parts do they differ. That’s the only difference, the meaning to the couple as a expression of their love is the same.

Well, no, actually. The meaning to the couple is not exactly the same unless you assume the couple are blithely unconscious of the fact that the sexual act is the ordinary physical means by which the two become one flesh AND that oneness, in the case of heterosexual couples, means the two have the capacity to create a new human being which is an instantiation of the oneness that embodies all the dimensions of their unity.

I don’t think it can be truly said that the couple are “united” if they have no interest in creating a new life to manifest their unity in reality.

It is only when the theoretical couple engage in sex, with no thought of what their complete “oneness” ontologically entails, is the meaning to the couple no different than to the gay pair.

You would have to assume like-mindedness to conclude “no difference,” but that begs the question of whether the unitive aspect of their relationship was completely present for the heterosexual couple to begin with. I would argue that it wasn’t and the proof is that, like you, they see their unity as merely being like the unity of the gay pair, which is lacking precisely the quality of a truly conjugal marriage which views creating a new human being that shares or takes his/her nature from both of them, as an integral aspect of what it means to be a married couple.

That is, a truly “married” couple would positively will their unity to bring about the existence of new human beings who are the embodiment of their spiritual, psychological, intellectual, emotional, social and physical oneness. Absent that integral desire for their relationship, I would argue that the couple are not demonstrating the unitive aspect of what a complete marriage truly involves.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Then it sure isn’t given enough air time.

To this point, I agree completely. I personally think far too many people get married to people they shouldn’t or for reasons they shouldn’t, simply because they feel like it’s expected or it’s supposed to be that way. I would assert that marriage is a FAR more serious commitment than most people believe it to be, and that people should be encouraged to seriously consider marriage, rather than be taught that it’s a universal goal for people to have and that there HAS to be someone out there for you. For one, society’s pressing of “marriage or you must be some kind of failure” puts a lot of pressure on people who may be called to consecrated religious life, or just single life, both of which should be regarded with respect and dignity.

I was hoping you’d say that as I think it proves my point - only by thinking in terms of machine parts do they differ. That’s the only difference, the meaning to the couple as a expression of their love is the same.

I have a bit to expand on for this point, so I’ll address it in another post to save space.

All I can say is that this style of argumentation sends a mixed message. In terms of your objective, let me put it like this.

We increasingly live in a multicultural world. We understand (or should) that everyone is entitled to the same rights and freedoms regardless of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (I’m quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Society doesn’t have many moral absolutes these days, but to me and many others that is an absolute. It appeals to both the rational and emotional parts of our souls. Live and let live.

So, starting at that gold standard, why should a couple who love each other and wish to remain together for always be told they do not have the moral right and freedom to physically express their love?

Please let me know if I’m interpreting this correctly or not. I do agree that everyone deserves the same rights as human beings, regardless of any individual factors. But the way the whole “live and let live” philosophy often comes across is that anything is permissible so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else or infringe upon their own personal rights, and I think that this is where people that take issue with it find it disagreeable. Depending on the reason, they may be right or they may be wrong, but in the context of sexual relationships, I would say that there is not an inalienable right to be able to have sex with any consenting partner. There isn’t necessarily a “sexual activity right” included in that list.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that sexual acts between two consenting legal aged parties should be actively punished based on the genders of the participants. In that sense, live and let live, as people will make choices regardless, and that it is their free will to do so. That being said, the philosophy that seems to be presented is one that encourages not tolerance out of respect for free will, but one that pushes active acceptance of people’s sexual choices and encourages sexual activity between two people who want to. It strikes me as encouraging a lack of self discipline and a lack of self control, almost as if the idea is that it is inevitable that two people who want to will have sex. As if the participants can’t control their actions in that case, and instead of being taught discipline and respect for sexual relations, people are seemingly taught that their physical desires will overcome their self-control anyway, so they shouldn’t bother.

Obviously that characterization takes the matter to a bit of an extreme, but overall, the underlying feeling of the way sexuality is treated in modern society is that your sexual urges can’t be controlled forever, so you should be responsible and use a condom since you’re going to do it anyway.