Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[inocente]

No. It is the teaching of the Church that the Ten Commandments are a part of the Natural Law, but in the moral sphere. In other words, morality is based on the way God has created our human psychology.

As I just said, the moral law is an extension of the Natural Law. I can’t help what " popular " universidy classes teach. They do not determine what the natural law means in the moral sphere, God does.

Sounds like you need to do some research.

CCC 1954 …] The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin

Thomas’ natural law philosophy is aimed at exposing the way it’s determined by human reason.

I don’t know that the golden rule has anything to do with it, but yes God tells us all what we must do to please me. I don’t see the meaning of your distinction here. Everyone is morally obliged to follow the Natural, Moral Law.

Sounds like you need to do some research.

CCC 1970: The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between “the two ways” and to put into practice the words of the Lord. It is summed up in the Golden Rule, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets.”

*I have given you the answer, look it up. I want you to see what the Church says. But as far as certain laws the Old Testament contained, Christ said some were laws of men which no longer applied.

I didn’t sidstep the issue. I wanted you to go to the proper section of the Catechism and read it for yourself. Just look at the bottom of this page and you will find a link to the Catechism. It won’t bite you .*

You still sidestepped. You said to me “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?” and I asked where is the commandment. Where’s the commandment, can’t you find it?

What in the world are you talking about? Here is what I said, " You did notice I said " age appropriate " instruction - which is something public schools care nothing about by the way, they expose children as young as 5 to every perversity before they can hardly think. But to the point, it never hurt me or any of the kids I went to school with, so your fear is unfounded. And if you were worried you would certainly keep your kids out public schools. " Please explain how your response is realated to what I said.

It’s not an especially good justification to say that because public schools do things then you should too (reductio ad absurdum: other people rape and pillage so why shouldn’t you).

The Scripture you mentined is read at Mass on a regular four year cycle along with much of the Scriptures. So far I haven’t seen any one, young or old, faint away in the pews. Of course the accompanying sermon does not get into gory details. Would you rather the young girl you have in mind loose her soul because the Church neglected to inform her what God expected of us? A very strange attitude.

Anecdotes about what you see in a public setting tell us nothing whatsoever about depression.

*'It was “the Catholic psychiatric hospitals, facing a great number of severely depressed homosexual patients, who started to raise their voices against discrimination” explains Laurent Chambon, a French sociologist living in Amsterdam, by phone to euronews.

For Chambon, this progressive position taken by Dutch Catholics differs from the official Catholic Church view on the matter, because of the Catholics’ minority status in the Netherlands. “They are a minority and thus tend to be more progressive, similarly to the Jewish minority.”’ - Reflecting on 12 years of gay marriage in the Netherlands*

PS: sorry for late reply, ran out of time yesterday.

 

[inocente]

Your assumption, which we have no reason to believe, is that only gay individuals will engage in gay sex. Just because - even if true - only 2-3% of human beings have a decidedly gay orientation does not mean only 2-3% of human beings will ever engage in gay sex.

I’ve no idea where you got that. You even quoted me saying, “the idolators exchanged and gave up what was natural to them, as would be the case, for instance, with heterosexuals taking part in depraved pagan ritual sex ceremonies.”

*Paul’s claim is that sin makes the sinner increasingly incapable of making wise prudential judgements. Addiction to sin, like every other addiction, takes away the power to make good decisions and live them out. Addiction to sexual sin is a powerful inducement towards getting sexual pleasure from whatever sources are available.

It is entirely conceivable that engaging in sex in such a way that a person becomes addicted to pleasure, that person will become more and more indiscriminate about choices of partners and the kind of sex they choose.*

Paul is not making an opaque philosophical argument, he is teaching ordinary people who listen to what he is saying rather than go off at increasingly wild tangents.

Paul’s words, in fact, demonstrate that he is clearly speaking of those who follow their passions - not their orientation. He is not speaking of “gay” individuals, but anyone who abdicates reason and becomes indiscriminate in following passions. That does not describe “gay” individuals, but anyone of any orientation who becomes morally stupid because of addiction to sexual sin. That could be far more than 2-3% if normative social inhibitors erode away and a proclivity to sin becomes entrenched in a post-Christian culture.

Or, on the other hand, you could read what he wrote. He is not speaking of the 15-year old Catholic lesbian in the pew next to you, unless you think that the typical 15-year old Catholic lesbian has “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.” (1:23)

Is that what you think, that all homosexuals who say they are Christians are lying? Does that include priests? - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

*Speaking of reading into Paul what you want to see there, your experience with social behaviours comes from a post-Christian culture that hasn’t yet entirely abandoned normative Christian behaviours. Paul didn’t live in such a world. He lived in a pagan world where sexuality was not so controlled. Having a homosexual orientation is not the only reason individuals engage in gay sex. Being morally corrupted and addicted to pleasure may be another cause of engagement. That cause could create decidedly more ominous consequences and numbers than you seem willing to acknowledge.

This may, in fact, be an byproduct of accepting gay orientation as normative if that involves a failure to recognize that accepting gay individuals does not mean we ought to accept engagement in all sexual behaviours indiscriminately. Acceptance of indiscriminate sex may not increase the number of gay individuals but it may explode the number of individuals addicted to sex of all kinds, which is the reason Paul’s words about “following passions” ought to be heeded.*

Or, on the other hand, you could read what he wrote rather than extrapolating extravagant theories.

PS: sorry for late reply, ran out of time yesterday.

 

[inocente]

This is nonsense.

The logic of describing eating “regular meals” as a whim highlights that you have no inclination to use words unambiguously. Do you understand what a whim is and how a whim is distinct from a reasoned prudential decision?

So your argument is that God made teenagers to follow indiscriminately every whim that comes into their brains? ADHD does not describe a condition, as far as you are concerned, but rather an ideal. Is that what you are getting at?

So it amounts to abuse to attempt to dissuade teenagers from jealousy, envy, dishonesty, sexual misconduct, and a litany of other urges that enter into the hearts of humans because all of these “whims” and desires are from God merely because they make their appearance?

Not sure what you mean by watertight but I suspect it entails a very idiosyncratic and self-interested notion of morality.

Still your worst argument ever. To liken sexual identity to a whim is, to use your word, nonsense.

*CCC 2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. *

 

[Peter_Plato]

Still your worst argument ever. To liken sexual identity to a whim is, to use your word, nonsense.

Never claimed they were alike or that acting on a whim is the same as acting from a “sexual identity” - which I am not even sure how that would be determined if not physiologically.

I did say - which you seemed to gave missed - is that acting on a whim is determinably not the same as acting from a, presumably, stable identity. That it why it is called a ‘whim’ after all - ”an unusual or unexplained sudden desire" - one that, by implication, is not explicable by one’s identity, but diverges radically from what would be expected from that individual.

English is not your first language, I take it.

*CCC 2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. *

You would have to read into this paragraph something beyond what was intented if you wish to infer the teaching implies that “sexual identity” is something quite apart from the physiology of the person determinable from their biological makeup.

That, perhaps, is your difficulty, as well, with reading into Paul some rather bizarre modern notions that separate “sexual identity” from biological nature.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Or, on the other hand, you could read what he wrote. He is not speaking of the 15-year old Catholic lesbian in the pew next to you, unless you think that the typical 15-year old Catholic lesbian has “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.” (1:23)

You do understand that Jesus walking on water and Peter attempting to do the same are instances of a metaphor, one dating back to the creation account in Genesis, right?
When God separated the infinite abyss (the void) and created dry land, it demonstrated his power over the primitive forces of nature - forces that if not properly superintended result in determinably evil consequences for those who mess about with them.

Jesus walking on water signifies his power to tame those forces. Peter attempting to walk on water highlights his incapacity to overcome those forces.

However, just as in Genesis, God raises dry land and sets it on the firmament separate from the void, Jesus confirms that Peter will be the rock or firmament upon which the Church will be established that will keep it safe from the abyss that generates evil results when not properly administered.

To tell a fifteen year old, lesbian or otherwise, that she can, on her own, master the subconscious void is akin to allowing a child to wander into a deep ocean with a less than helpful, “Follow whatever inclinations take hold on you!” The fifteen year old lesbian will drown in the abyss because you have falsely led her to believe that her own emotional urges and inclinations will keep her safe.

No actually, it is grace and the Holy Spirit who will lead her, to a rescue boat (the barque of St. Peter) and firm, dry land (the Kingdom of Heaven.) It is not her whims that will get her there.

It was a whim followed by Eve that got the human race into the difficulty it is in. Think about it. God, who tamed the abyss was told by humans that they wanted to “have a go” at overcoming the primeval forces on their own because they wanted to be gods. God, being the gentleman that he is said, “Fine, go for it, but you take on full responsibility for the consequences.” And here we are.

Science continues to assert that “We can tame the unknown all alone, without God. We will prove it.”

And you want the fifteen year old lesbian to believe she can, too, merely by listening to and following every prompt that comes into her head. “Walk into the abyss, my dear, you can do it. When things get bad, you can always find someone to blame - the homophobes who belittled or denied you, or the Catholics who made it too difficult for you. Someone will always be there to take on the blame, as long as you never let into your head that you are determinably responsible for your own state - that will never do. That is too burdensome a weight to carry - always blame someone else to deflect guilt and avoid responsibility!”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sounds like you need to do some research.

CCC 1954 …] The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin

Thomas’ natural law philosophy is aimed at exposing the way it’s determined by human reason.

Sounds like you need to do some research.

CCC 1970: The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between “the two ways” and to put into practice the words of the Lord. It is summed up in the Golden Rule, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets.”

You still sidestepped. You said to me “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?” and I asked where is the commandment. Where’s the commandment, can’t you find it?

It’s not an especially good justification to say that because public schools do things then you should too (reductio ad absurdum: other people rape and pillage so why shouldn’t you).

Anecdotes about what you see in a public setting tell us nothing whatsoever about depression.

*'It was “the Catholic psychiatric hospitals, facing a great number of severely depressed homosexual patients, who started to raise their voices against discrimination” explains Laurent Chambon, a French sociologist living in Amsterdam, by phone to euronews.

For Chambon, this progressive position taken by Dutch Catholics differs from the official Catholic Church view on the matter, because of the Catholics’ minority status in the Netherlands. “They are a minority and thus tend to be more progressive, similarly to the Jewish minority.”’ - Reflecting on 12 years of gay marriage in the Netherlands*

PS: sorry for late reply, ran out of time yesterday.

Your mode of argument is truly mystifying. You persist in refusing to address what I actually say by responding to something I did not say. I stand by what I have said tursting that the reader can see through the weeds. So, since you persist in missinterpreting whatever I say, why should I or anyone respond to your objections?

Best wishes in whatever you do to actually advance the cause of truth.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Never claimed they were alike or that acting on a whim is the same as acting from a “sexual identity” - which I am not even sure how that would be determined if not physiologically.

I did say - which you seemed to gave missed - is that acting on a whim is determinably not the same as acting from a, presumably, stable identity. That it why it is called a ‘whim’ after all - ”an unusual or unexplained sudden desire" - one that, by implication, is not explicable by one’s identity, but diverges radically from what would be expected from that individual.

English is not your first language, I take it.

English is my first language.

Personal remarks don’t substitute for a rational argument, do they? Let’s inject a few facts:

Me (post #95): “Telling teenagers that they displease God just by being how God made them can really mess them up for life.”

You (post #99): “And telling teenagers that they are free to follow whatever inclination or whim enters their hormone laden brains can also really mess them up for life.”

CCC 2333: “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity”.

So the CCC and I maintain that being gay (or being straight) is not a whim, and I still maintain this was your worst argument ever.

The first law of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

*You would have to read into this paragraph something beyond what was intented if you wish to infer the teaching implies that “sexual identity” is something quite apart from the physiology of the person determinable from their biological makeup.

That, perhaps, is your difficulty, as well, with reading into Paul some rather bizarre modern notions that separate “sexual identity” from biological nature.*

I didn’t understand how you could have got that idea.

Is English not your first language?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The first law of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

Precursor to the first law of holes:

If the sun quickly disappears behind a horizon and your world gets perceptibly indistinguishable from darkness, recognize that you just might be digging a hole.

You still haven’t explained why any whim that enters the teenaged girl’s mind shouldn’t be followed. Or are you claiming each one ought to be because every whim comes from God?

 

[inocente]

You do understand that Jesus walking on water and Peter attempting to do the same are instances of a metaphor, one dating back to the creation account in Genesis, right?
When God separated the infinite abyss (the void) and created dry land, it demonstrated his power over the primitive forces of nature - forces that if not properly superintended result in determinably evil consequences for those who mess about with them.

Jesus walking on water signifies his power to tame those forces. Peter attempting to walk on water highlights his incapacity to overcome those forces.

However, just as in Genesis, God raises dry land and sets it on the firmament separate from the void, Jesus confirms that Peter will be the rock or firmament upon which the Church will be established that will keep it safe from the abyss that generates evil results when not properly administered.

To tell a fifteen year old, lesbian or otherwise, that she can, on her own, master the subconscious void is akin to allowing a child to wander into a deep ocean with a less than helpful, “Follow whatever inclinations take hold on you!” The fifteen year old lesbian will drown in the abyss because you have falsely led her to believe that her own emotional urges and inclinations will keep her safe.

No actually, it is grace and the Holy Spirit who will lead her, to a rescue boat (the barque of St. Peter) and firm, dry land (the Kingdom of Heaven.) It is not her whims that will get her there.

It was a whim followed by Eve that got the human race into the difficulty it is in. Think about it. God, who tamed the abyss was told by humans that they wanted to “have a go” at overcoming the primeval forces on their own because they wanted to be gods. God, being the gentleman that he is said, “Fine, go for it, but you take on full responsibility for the consequences.” And here we are.

Science continues to assert that “We can tame the unknown all alone, without God. We will prove it.”

And you want the fifteen year old lesbian to believe she can, too, merely by listening to and following every prompt that comes into her head. “Walk into the abyss, my dear, you can do it. When things get bad, you can always find someone to blame - the homophobes who belittled or denied you, or the Catholics who made it too difficult for you. Someone will always be there to take on the blame, as long as you never let into your head that you are determinably responsible for your own state - that will never do. That is too burdensome a weight to carry - always blame someone else to deflect guilt and avoid responsibility!”

I take it your purpose is to argue that Paul didn’t mean what he wrote but instead intended your complicated metaphor, as if those listening to the Letter when it was first read out were theologians with detailed foreknowledge of Matthew’s gospel (walking on water), which wouldn’t yet be written for another 30 years.

Paul would have to be either a stunningly optimistic or stunningly incompetent teacher to expect the ordinary folk listening to draw such complicated imagery and yet still concentrate on all that is to come (another 15 chapters although the chapter markings were added later of course).

Your capacity to totally ignore what Paul writes in favor of what you think he should have written can only be applauded. :tiphat:

 

[inocente]

Your mode of argument is truly mystifying. You persist in refusing to address what I actually say by responding to something I did not say. I stand by what I have said tursting that the reader can see through the weeds. So, since you persist in missinterpreting whatever I say, why should I or anyone respond to your objections?

Best wishes in whatever you do to actually advance the cause of truth.

I reread both your and my posts and believe I responded to everything you wrote. It would have been good if you had at least tried to do the same.

Catholic posters have told me how they have used the natural law system to determine moral action in specific cases, so if you still disagree that it is a philosophical system of ethics then you would need to debate it with other Catholics.

CCC 1970 is in the section Law and Grace, so it directly contradicts you saying “I don’t know that the golden rule has anything to do with it”.

You’ve still avoided saying where the commandment is to back up your “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?”

I don’t believe I’ve misinterpreted what you said. Maybe you were having a bad day.

 

[inocente]

You still haven’t explained why any whim that enters the teenaged girl’s mind shouldn’t be followed. Or are you claiming each one ought to be because every whim comes from God?

Clearly teenagers, just like the rest of us, need to be cautious about whims, but I’ve no idea
what that has to do with sexual identity or the OP. Unless you’re saying that sexual orientation and/or natural law is whimsical, isn’t it a bit off-topic?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I reread both your and my posts and believe I responded to everything you wrote. It would have been good if you had at least tried to do the same.

Well that is a positive, now we just have to work on your understanding and interpretation of what you read.

Catholic posters have told me how they have used the natural law system to determine moral action in specific cases, so if you still disagree that it is a philosophical system of ethics then you would need to debate it with other Catholics.

That is slightly off topic. All I ever claimed was that there is a Natural Law accessible to reason and that the Moral Law ( the Ten Commandments ) given to Moses is a part of the Natural Law. God revealed it so there would be no mistake in the minds of men as to what the Natural Law required in the way of moral behavior. And yes Thomas Aquinas talks a lot about the Natural Law. But it is not something he or any philosopher invented. I don’t know who first used the term. But its meaning is that God has given us a brain which he intends us to use to determine right from wrong. And he created our intellects with the power to determine truth when we hit upon it. We find the Natural Law by reflecting on life and our surroundings and observing human behavior. I am not debating anyone, I am explaining to you what the Natural Law is. You seem to have an aversion to anything with the word " Nature " as a root.

CCC 1970 is in the section Law and Grace, so it directly contradicts you saying “I don’t know that the golden rule has anything to do with it”

But what is your point? How does the Golden Rule contadict anything I have said?

You’ve still avoided saying where the commandment is to back up your “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?”

You are simply evading somthing you don’t want to answer. You know which Commandment condemns all sexual activity except that between a validly married man and woman and which is open to the conception of a child. Surely you know which Commandment I am talking about. I gave you a big enough hint. Go look it up. I wanted you to read the surrounding reasoning. cohsu

I don’t believe I’ve misinterpreted what you said. Maybe you were having a bad day.

So you say. The weather is still ranging between the 50s to the 70s. And my days have been great. I see some real solid thinkers showing up lately. Not everyone is as contrary as your truly.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

That is slightly off topic. All I ever claimed was that there is a Natural Law accessible to reason and that the Moral Law ( the Ten Commandments ) given to Moses is a part of the Natural Law. God revealed it so there would be no mistake in the minds of men as to what the Natural Law required in the way of moral behavior. And yes Thomas Aquinas talks a lot about the Natural Law. But it is not something he or any philosopher invented. I don’t know who first used the term. But its meaning is that God has given us a brain which he intends us to use to determine right from wrong. And he created our intellects with the power to determine truth when we hit upon it. We find the Natural Law by reflecting on life and our surroundings and observing human behavior. I am not debating anyone, I am explaining to you what the Natural Law is. You seem to have an aversion to anything with the word " Nature " as a root.

I think natural law is read as a demonstration of divine law, the source in morality being Rom 2. It isn’t equal to the ten commandments, since Rom 2 says “what the law requires is written on their hearts”. Thomas tries to expose the requirements.

*But what is your point? How does the Golden Rule contadict anything I have said? *

You said the golden rule is beside the point, while the CCC says it sums up the law. So to spell it out, the CCC directly contradicts your “I don’t know that the golden rule has anything to do with it”.

Thus I repeat with the CCC to my aid, that “If God tells you that it is morally good for you to tell others what they must do to obey Him then by the golden rule you must allow Him to tell others what you must do to obey Him”.

*You are simply evading somthing you don’t want to answer. You know which Commandment condemns all sexual activity except that between a validly married man and woman and which is open to the conception of a child. Surely you know which Commandment I am talking about. I gave you a big enough hint. Go look it up. I wanted you to read the surrounding reasoning. cohsu *

I think you got confused here. You didn’t ask me anything, so I cannot be evading. While I have asked you several times now to answer a simple question and you are still evading. Surely it would save us both a lot of time if you just give the chapter and verse? Where is the commandment to back up your “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?”

*Not everyone is as contrary as your truly. *

I can only agree that you are truly contrary.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think natural law is read as a demonstration of divine law, the source in morality being Rom 2. It isn’t equal to the ten commandments, since Rom 2 says “what the law requires is written on their hearts”. Thomas tries to expose the requirements.

You said the golden rule is beside the point, while the CCC says it sums up the law. So to spell it out, the CCC directly contradicts your “I don’t know that the golden rule has anything to do with it”.

Thus I repeat with the CCC to my aid, that “If God tells you that it is morally good for you to tell others what they must do to obey Him then by the golden rule you must allow Him to tell others what you must do to obey Him”.

I think you got confused here. You didn’t ask me anything, so I cannot be evading. While I have asked you several times now to answer a simple question and you are still evading. Surely it would save us both a lot of time if you just give the chapter and verse? Where is the commandment to back up your “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?”

I can only agree that you are truly contrary.

Well, I have stated my case which you reject. I guess the reader will just have to go back and decide for themselves who is correct.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I take it you couldn’t locate that commandment then.

My (name removed by moderator)ut was for Prodigal_Son, who started the thread, but thanks anyway.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To the reader. I have been asked several times what commandment says that homosexual acts, or any sexual act outside a validly consecrated marriage which is not open to the conception of a new life is seriously sinful.

I have responded to this person with the following : " You can find it for yourself in the Link below to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You will find all you need to know in Part III, Article 6 ( how appropriate ). " You will notice that I gave a very good hint. It should be noted that Articl 1 in the same section covers natural law.

The reason I did not give the number of the commandment is because I wanted to make that person read the surrounding comments. Instead of doing as I suggested ( several times ), this person has accused me of not knowing which commandment this teaching fell under. In fact this was his parting shot. Now I ask you, I gave the appropriate link to the correct commandment and even gave an unmistakeable hint. Apparently, this person fears something. I have no idea what. But if they don’t want to access the link and read, what more could I reasonabley be expected to do. If one does not want to open the link to the Catholic Catechism at the bottom of his page and go to the referenced sections, then their accusation is unfounded.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

To the reader. I have been asked several times what commandment says that homosexual acts, or any sexual act outside a validly consecrated marriage which is not open to the conception of a new life is seriously sinful.

I have responded to this person with the following : " You can find it for yourself in the Link below to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You will find all you need to know in Part III, Article 6 ( how appropriate ). " You will notice that I gave a very good hint. It should be noted that Articl 1 in the same section covers natural law.

The reason I did not give the number of the commandment is because I wanted to make that person read the surrounding comments. Instead of doing as I suggested ( several times ), this person has accused me of not knowing which commandment this teaching fell under. In fact this was his parting shot. Now I ask you, I gave the appropriate link to the correct commandment and even gave an unmistakeable hint. Apparently, this person fears something. I have no idea what. But if they don’t want to access the link and read, what more could I reasonabley be expected to do. If one does not want to open the link to the Catholic Catechism at the bottom of his page and go to the referenced sections, then their accusation is unfounded.

I already have a link to the CCC on my homepage.

Trouble is, article 6 starts with the 6th commandment: You shall not commit adultery.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another.

Help me out here, I’m a simple Baptist. Instead of appealing to the dear reader, who for all we know got dead bored with all this ping pong and left some time back, explain to me what you think “You shall not commit adultery” has to do with your “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I already have a link to the CCC on my homepage.

Laudatory indeed. But what do you mean by your " homepage ? " I’m afraid I missed it.

Trouble is, article 6 starts with the 6th commandment: You shall not commit adultery.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another.

All sexual acts which are opposed to Natural Law are included under the 6th Commandment. Aspects of them could also fall under some other Commandments, perhaps the 9th and others depending on circumstances. But the acts themselves fall under the 6th.

Help me out here, I’m a simple Baptist. Instead of appealing to the dear reader, who for all we know got dead bored with all this ping pong and left some time back, explain to me what you think “You shall not commit adultery” has to do with your “Surely you aren’t saying the scriptures condone sex which intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible?”

Article 6 explains why homosexuality is included in the 6th commandment. I don’t think I could enlarge on the explanation given there.

In my own words, Natural Law clearly explains that our sexuality was given to us for one overriding purpose, to perpetuate the human race. This does not mean that there are not subordinate aspects related to this purpose. But to choose a subordinate aspect, such as pleasure, to the exclusion of the primary purpose is to subvert the Law of our Nature - and therefore to violate God’s 6th Commandment. So, unless one is validly married to a person of the opposite sex, one is to refrain from all intentional sexual activity, including willfully engaging in " fantasies " and the like.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Laudatory indeed. But what do you mean by your " homepage ? " I’m afraid I missed it.

It’s only for me, family and friends.

*All sexual acts which are opposed to Natural Law are included under the 6th Commandment. Aspects of them could also fall under some other Commandments, perhaps the 9th and others depending on circumstances. But the acts themselves fall under the 6th.

Article 6 explains why homosexuality is included in the 6th commandment. I don’t think I could enlarge on the explanation given there.
*

Nope, art 6 just says that by tradition all sexuality is put under that heading. It gives no reasoning as to why a specific prohibition on carnal relations with another person’s spouse can be interpreted as saying everything there is to say about sexuality.

*In my own words, Natural Law clearly explains that our sexuality was given to us for one overriding purpose, to perpetuate the human race. This does not mean that there are not subordinate aspects related to this purpose. But to choose a subordinate aspect, such as pleasure, to the exclusion of the primary purpose is to subvert the Law of our Nature - and therefore to violate God’s 6th Commandment. So, unless one is validly married to a person of the opposite sex, one is to refrain from all intentional sexual activity, including willfully engaging in " fantasies " and the like. *

The reason why natural law says that is simply because Thomas put procreation into his catalog of goods. It wouldn’t if he hadn’t done so. Your argument is circular.

Please read up on natural law, you are missing out on a major part of Thomas (and, I think, the only theory of ethics used by the Church) by not doing so:

*“If any moral theory is a theory of natural law, it is Aquinas’s. (Every introductory ethics anthology that includes material on natural law theory includes material by or about Aquinas; every encyclopedia article on natural law thought refers to Aquinas.)” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ *

 

[Peter_Plato]

The reason why natural law says that is simply because Thomas put procreation into his catalog of goods. It wouldn’t if he hadn’t done so. Your argument is circular.

Why would adultery be against natural law, except for the point about procreation?

There is no other reason for Scripture, the Church, natural law theory or Jesus himself to speak against adultery as immoral except for the fact that the “two become one flesh,” i.e., a new life is procreated which genetically is the flesh of the two.

Are you claiming there is a better, stronger ground to condemn adultery elsewhere than procreation?

Provide that ground and your view might have some traction. As it stands, it is like you arguing that the Church and Scripture do not claim killing is wrong because someone dies, but for some other reason left undefined.

The reason natural law says that, is not merely because Aquinas said so, but because natural law provides a sound basis for including procreation as being consistently against the tenets of natural law and Aquinas demonstrated that better than anyone else.

Please read up on natural law, you are missing out on a major part of Thomas (and, I think, the only theory of ethics used by the Church) by not doing so:

“If any moral theory is a theory of natural law, it is Aquinas’s. (Every introductory ethics anthology that includes material on natural law theory includes material by or about Aquinas; every encyclopedia article on natural law thought refers to Aquinas.)” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

If you read carefully, the point is that Aquinas’ moral theory is an example of natural law theory; in fact, such a good example that “every encyclopedia article on natural law refers to Aquinas,” possibly because he expounded natural law theory better and more fully than anyone else. That doesn’t mean he was the first to do so, nor that natural law theory originated with him. Natural law theory goes back, at least, to the Greeks and Romans and elements of it are found in ancient cultures all over the world.