Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s only for me, family and friends.

Well, we wouldn’t want it made public, might tarnish your image as a true believer.
Why hide your light under a bushel?

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.

All the Commandments are part of God’s Naturel Law. God’s revealed Moral Law is something that can be revealed by the Natural Law. It is the Tradition of the Church’s teaching that all disorded sexual acts are to be included under the Sixth Commandment. Given that Tradition, where else should they be included? I am just giving you the Church’s Traditional teaching, I don’t expect you to accept it.

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.

Now that could hardly be true could it, because the Tradition of the Church goes back to God’s direct Revelation, which goes back to Genesis ( as opposed to God’s Revelation through Nature). Thomas may indeed have addressed the issue, but the teaching did not originate with him, it was a teaching of the Church from the moment Christ established the Church. So the argument is circular only in your narrow opinion, narrow in the sense that you exclude the possibility that the Church is the authorized authority for transmitting God’s Revelation…

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:

I have just explained why this is not true. And no doubt I could learn much more about Natural Law, we can all improve our knowledge base.

*“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/ *

As I have just pointed out, it is not true that Aquinas " invented " natural law. Even on the face of of your reference, the fact that Thomas spoke of Natural Law, does not mean it originated with him. Who knows who was the first person to use the term. But it does illustrate that Thomas was convinced that there was such a Law. And the Church has always recoginzed this. And Article 6, paragraph 2357 refers to Scripture as proof of its teaching on human sexuality.

1. Genesis 19: 1-29 ( the story of Sodom and Gomora )
2. Romans 1: 24-27

From the King James Bible:

" 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet "

1. 1 Corrithians 6: 9-10

From the King James Bible

" 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. "

1. 1 Timothy 1: 10

From the King James Bible

10 " Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. "

1. Persona Humana 8

I cannot quote the entire document. I will just draw attention to a number items mentioned.

A. It collects all the teachings on human sexuality as being a command of the " Golden Rule. "
B. It further collects them under the Sixth Commandment ( except those which would fall under the Ninth - covetness )
C. It clearly explains how all these teachings are a part of the Church’s Traditional Teaching.
D. It clearly identifies them as part of the Moral Law, which is the moral extention of the Natural Law.
F. Finally, it closes with a wealth of references which may be pursued with profit.

P.S. plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics is an authority neither on Aquinas nor the Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church.

Have a good day.
Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

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.

Que? You think it is fine to cheat on your wife so long as you don’t make babies?

Regarding natural law reasoning, please read the article I linked, in particular the section on the catalog of goods - plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/#CatBasGoo

Notice the other goods Thomas puts in his catalog.

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

Errr… it’s one of the ten commandments.

*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.
*

I don’t think you meant to say that procreation is against the tenets of natural law, but in any event it’s circular to say the reason natural law says that is because natural law says that.

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.

I get the impression I’m the only person here who knew how natural law works before this thread started.

Natural law theory isn’t taught in many basic ethics classes, the favorites being utilitarianism and deontology instead, but as well as inside the Church it’s historically important, as is the concept of natural justice. There are various accounts of the different versions of natural law, and there have been a number of threads on Thomas’ version in the past.

Imho a good basic guide to the different systems of ethics is amazon.com/A-Companion-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0631187855

Out of all of all the systems ever invented, I believe the only one which finds anything about homosexuality immoral, or even mentions homosexuality, is the Thomas version of natural law.

I don’t really have anything more to say on this thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Out of all of all the systems ever invented, I believe the only one which finds anything about homosexuality immoral, or even mentions homosexuality, is the Thomas version of natural law.

Huh. I could have sworn I read something about this in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Academics, Pascal, Butler, and Kant, among other places. Guess they all must not count as philosophers.

 

[inocente]

Well, we wouldn’t want it made public, might tarnish your image as a true believer.
Why hide your light under a bushel?

Privacy.

*All the Commandments are part of God’s Naturel Law. God’s revealed Moral Law is something that can be revealed by the Natural Law. It is the Tradition of the Church’s teaching that all disorded sexual acts are to be included under the Sixth Commandment. Given that Tradition, where else should they be included? I am just giving you the Church’s Traditional teaching, I don’t expect you to accept it. *

Good, so as I said, Thomas tries to uncover the reasoning behind “what the law requires is written on their hearts” and there is no commandment in scripture regarding 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?”.

So finally, we agree.

Now that could hardly be true could it, because the Tradition of the Church goes back to God’s direct Revelation, which goes back to Genesis ( as opposed to God’s Revelation through Nature). Thomas may indeed have addressed the issue, but the teaching did not originate with him, it was a teaching of the Church from the moment Christ established the Church. So the argument is circular only in your narrow opinion, narrow in the sense that you exclude the possibility that the Church is the authorized authority for transmitting God’s Revelation…

You appear to be saying that there is some private revelation only available to some abstract entity. I can’t see the Church endorsing that argument.

Telling the 15-year old in the pew next to you that she can never be who God made her to be, never have a partner, can be devastating, you need a really good reason, not just that it’s always been like that and no one knows why.

As I have just pointed out, it is not true that Aquinas " invented " natural law.

I think he was the one to systematize it. The book I linked to Peter is very good.

From the King James Bible:

There’s no point pepper spraying verses out of context at a Baptist. Yon Baptist will tell you to read the whole passage, in different translations, while thinking about what the author wants to tell the original audience, without preconceptions.

P.S. plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics is an authority neither on Aquinas nor the Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church.

The author is a professor of religious philosophy with a PhD from Notre Dame.

He is the author of “Natural Law and Practical Rationality (Cambridge, 2001), An Essay on Divine Authority (Cornell, 2002), Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics (Cambridge, 2006), Philosophy of Law (Blackwell, 2006), and God and Moral Law: On the Theistic Explanation of Morality (Oxford, 2011)” - explore.georgetown.edu/people/murphym/

I don’t really have anything more to say on this thread.

 

[inocente]

Huh. I could have sworn I read something about this in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Academics, Pascal, Butler, and Kant, among other places. Guess they all must not count as philosophers.

I thought you’d left town. I said, and you quoted me saying “systems of ethics”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I thought you’d left town. I said, and you quoted me saying “systems of ethics”.

Hi there. I did actually, quite literally, leave town. Still out of town, actually.

As for “systems of ethics”, Kantianism is clearly a system, and Stoicism is clearly a system. Plato and Aristotle also saw themselves as system builders, and Butler saw himself as a system builder too.

 

[inocente]

Hi there. I did actually, quite literally, leave town. Still out of town, actually.

As for “systems of ethics”, Kantianism is clearly a system, and Stoicism is clearly a system. Plato and Aristotle also saw themselves as system builders, and Butler saw himself as a system builder too.

I know Kant had some strange personal views, like organ donation is immoral, and we can safely ignore the annihilation of children born out of wedlock and so on, but I’m not sure how to get consensual sex = bad out of the categorical imperative. There’s maybe an argument that it would be bad if everyone was gay, as that would cut the population somewhat, but I don’t see how to get gay = bad out of the imperative, as might is right = bad would overrule it.

Must read up on stoicism, but I seem to remember it’s about a harmonious soul ruled by reason. Thus any form of lust would be irrational and vicious, but that would apply to straight or gay.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I know Kant had some strange personal views, like organ donation is immoral, and we can safely ignore the annihilation of children born out of wedlock and so on, but I’m not sure how to get consensual sex = bad out of the categorical imperative. There’s maybe an argument that it would be bad if everyone was gay, as that would cut the population somewhat, but I don’t see how to get gay = bad out of the imperative, as might is right = bad would overrule it.

Well, the first version of the categorical imperative is a mess, I agree. But it’s not hard to imagine how one might use the second version – that we must not treat people as mere means to our own end – so as to forbid all acts of lust.

Must read up on stoicism, but I seem to remember it’s about a harmonious soul ruled by reason. Thus any form of lust would be irrational and vicious, but that would apply to straight or gay.

This is precisely Catholic teaching!!! Catholics do not teach that there’s anything especially awful about gay lust. All lust is wrong.

If you know of any natural law theory that says that some kinds of lust are OK, please let me know.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, the first version of the categorical imperative is a mess, I agree. But it’s not hard to imagine how one might use the second version – that we must not treat people as mere means to our own end – so as to forbid all acts of lust.

This is precisely Catholic teaching!!! Catholics do not teach that there’s anything especially awful about gay lust. All lust is wrong.

If you know of any natural law theory that says that some kinds of lust are OK, please let me know.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Privacy.
Good, so as I said, Thomas tries to uncover the reasoning behind “what the law requires is written on their hearts” and there is no commandment in scripture regarding 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?”.

Yes Thomas did that, but that is not what you said originally.
The sixth Commandment, as I pointed out in my previous post. If it you disagree, then are you saying that sex outside these confines is O.K? Or are you just condoning homosexual acts while forbidding others? If that is so, where is your justification for that?.

So finally, we agree.

I don’t see where.

You appear to be saying that there is some private revelation only available to some abstract entity. I can’t see the Church endorsing that argument.

Part 1 of the CCC clearly supports the idea that God has revealed himself in the things he has created. This is what has been termed God’s Natural Revelation.

Telling the 15-year old in the pew next to you that she can never be who God made her to be, never have a partner, can be devastating, you need a really good reason, not just that it’s always been like that and no one knows why.

Are you suggesting that the Church avoid reading Scripture because it would make some people uncomfortable? As I have stated, the sermons do not typically get into embarrassing details. However it would certainly be brought up in confession. Parents would be urged to get counseling for the child you mention. The Church would not agree with you that " God made her that way. " That is modern clap trap. The Church is interested only in getting people to heaven, it is not interested in making them feel comfortable.

I think he was the one to systematize it.

Possibly.

The book I linked to Peter is very good.

O.K.

There’s no point pepper spraying verses out of context at a Baptist. Yon Baptist will tell you to read the whole passage, in different translations, while thinking about what the author wants to tell the original audience, without preconceptions.

They were all references to paragraph 2356 of Part III of the CCC. I thought you liked references? Or is it that you don’t think the Church is qualified to interpret the Scriptures?

So you believe in private interpretation. And while the Church can show that she has a warranty from Christ that she cannot err in matters of faith and morals, where is the Baptist warranty, or your own for private interpretation?

The author is a professor of religious philosophy with a PhD from Notre Dame.

He is the author of “Natural Law and Practical Rationality (Cambridge, 2001), An Essay on Divine Authority (Cornell, 2002), Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics (Cambridge, 2006), Philosophy of Law (Blackwell, 2006), and God and Moral Law: On the Theistic Explanation of Morality (Oxford, 2011)” - explore.georgetown.edu/people/murphym/

So?

I don’t really have anything more to say on this thread.

Just as well, private interpretation is no warranty for truth.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

If you know of any natural law theory that says that some kinds of lust are OK, please let me know.

As the natural law machinery derives what is right from what is good, if you were perversely to tell it that lust is good then hey presto. In reality anyone producing a new theory would have asked it questions such as “is murder good or bad?” to make sure it gave sensible answers before publishing (where “sensible” would be what is in line with the current morality of their culture).

But straight or gay can be lustful or loving of course, there’s no moral difference unless one is preconceived.

 

[inocente]

Yes Thomas did that, but that is not what you said originally.
The sixth Commandment, as I pointed out in my previous post. If it you disagree, then are you saying that sex outside these confines is O.K? Or are you just condoning homosexual acts while forbidding others? If that is so, where is your justification for that?

You continue to maintain that do not commit adultery can somehow magically be read as do not have sex which “intends to avoid the production of children, or in which that result would be impossible” but you have provided no logic for why.

You’ve implied that the CCC gives the logic but it doesn’t. In fact it sides with me as it explicitly states:

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

We seem to be going round in circles here.

Part 1 of the CCC clearly supports the idea that God has revealed himself in the things he has created. This is what has been termed God’s Natural Revelation.

We all know that from Romans, but what of it? It tells us of His eternal power and divine nature. God has revealed himself. What does that have to do with the OP? Are you saying homosexuality is somehow hidden in nature?

I don’t feel this is productive until you provide a substantive point.

Are you suggesting that the Church avoid reading Scripture because it would make some people uncomfortable? As I have stated, the sermons do not typically get into embarrassing details. However it would certainly be brought up in confession. Parents would be urged to get counseling for the child you mention. The Church would not agree with you that " God made her that way. " That is modern clap trap. The Church is interested only in getting people to heaven, it is not interested in making them feel comfortable.

You may want me to believe you are speaking for the Church but I don’t believe you are as you’ve not given me any reason to. Lay posters can huff and puff all they want but you know intimidation ain’t going to work on me.

Regarding verse mining Romans, please see my conversation with others on this thread.

They were all references to paragraph 2356 of Part III of the CCC. I thought you liked references? Or is it that you don’t think the Church is qualified to interpret the Scriptures?

Yes evidence is good. But otherwise What? Que? I’m not debating the Church, I’m debating you. And CCC 2356 is about rape. What that has to do with the price of bread I’ve no idea.

*So you believe in private interpretation. And while the Church can show that she has a warranty from Christ that she cannot err in matters of faith and morals, where is the Baptist warranty, or your own for private interpretation? *

Que? What?

So?

I was pointing out that you were badly mistaken when you said that the author of the article is “an authority neither on Aquinas nor the Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church”.

Just as well, private interpretation is no warranty for truth.

It would be cool if you could make a rational argument at least once in a while rather than just throwing out flippant remarks.

If you have a substantive point on the OP then fine, otherwise I feel we’re going in circles.

 

[Amandil]

You continue to maintain that do not commit adultery can somehow magically read as do not have sex which “intends to avoid the production of children, or that result would be impossible” but you have provided no logic for why.

It’s not magic it’s common sense. The section explicitly refers to the universal call to chastity. Adultery is one of many offenses against chastity, just as masturbation, fornication, and homosexual acts are as well.

inocente:

You’ve implied that the CCC gives the logic but it doesn’t. In fact it sides with me as it explicitly states:

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

The Catechism says more than that. You can’t just pick out only those things which are bias to your perspective while ignoring the rest.

inocente:

Yes evidence is good. But otherwise What? Que? I’m not debating the Church, I’m debating you. And CCC 2356 is about rape. What that has to do with the price of bread I’ve no idea.

They may have meant 2357 and following, it’s right under 2356. Easy to find since its the next paragraph with the large heading “Chastity and Homosexuality”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As the natural law machinery derives what is right from what is good, if you were perversely to tell it that lust is good then hey presto. In reality anyone producing a new theory would have asked it questions such as “is murder good or bad?” to make sure it gave sensible answers before publishing (where “sensible” would be what is in line with the current morality of their culture).

1. You’re right that we need a theory of value before we can do natural law theorizing.
2. You’re wrong that we should base our theory of value on idiosyncratic cultural biases.

 

[inocente]

It’s not magic it’s common sense. The section explicitly refers to the universal call to chastity. Adultery is one of many offenses against chastity, just as masturbation, fornication, and homosexual acts are as well.

Wouldn’t it be a bizarre kind of common sense to think that “do not commit adultery” is a universal call to chastity?

Besides, isn’t any and every kind of sex an offense against chastity?

I guess you’re trying to save Linus’ argument, but I think you’re just finally flushed it!

The Catechism says more than that. You can’t just pick out only those things which are bias to your perspective while ignoring the rest.

The only word in “do not commit adultery” which might need a definition is “adultery” and CCC 2380 defines it, so yes I can.

They may have meant 2357 and following, it’s right under 2356. Easy to find since its the next paragraph with the large heading “Chastity and Homosexuality”.

I don’t know, he didn’t say “2357 and following”, he said what he said.

 

[Amandil]

Wouldn’t it be a bizarre kind of common sense to think that “do not commit adultery” is a universal call to chastity?

Besides, isn’t any and every kind of sex an offense against chastity?

I guess you’re trying to save Linus’ argument, but I think you’re just finally flushed it!

No, you just proved that you’re an ardent relativist/subjectivist.

inocente:

The only word in “do not commit adultery” which might need a definition is “adultery” and CCC 2380 defines it, so yes I can.

Then you’re not being intellectually honest. The section on the sixth commandment runs through several paragraphs and not just 2380.

inocente:

I don’t know, he didn’t say “2357 and following”, he said what he said.

If you had the Catechism in front of you then you ought to have seen it.

In any case you give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a typo, not ridicule.

 

[inocente]

1. You’re wrong that we should base our theory of value on idiosyncratic cultural biases.

I think I didn’t explain well. Suppose you’ve developed a new theory of ethics, call it prodigalism. You want to test prodigalism before publishing to make sure it doesn’t give laughable results. So you ask it various moral questions to check that it doesn’t give answers which your intended audience would think are weird and immoral.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think I didn’t explain well. Suppose you’ve developed a new theory of ethics, call it prodigalism. You want to test prodigalism before publishing to make sure it doesn’t give laughable results. So you ask it various moral questions to check that it doesn’t give answers which your intended audience would think are weird and immoral.

This plays a role in ethics, but it can’t be the central role. Otherwise, ethics would simply be the task of developing a theory to explain the audience’s biases.

 

[inocente]

No, you just proved that you’re an ardent relativist/subjectivist.

Please explain how it is relativist or subjectivist to say that “do not commit adultery” cannot be read as a universal call to chastity.

*Then you’re not being intellectually honest. The section on the sixth commandment runs through several paragraphs and not just 2380. *

Please explain how “do not commit adultery” is anything other than what is says.

Please don’t keep saying read the CCC. I’ve read it, and I cannot make it say anything like “do not commit adultery” is a universal call to chastity.

I don’t appreciate being called dishonest for not comprehending what appears to me to be a totally irrational argument. Please at least try to make some sense rather than just calling me names.

In any case you give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a typo, not ridicule.

I never held it to ridicule, it’s still there on the thread, it’s only a few posts back. I said “And CCC 2356 is about rape. What that has to do with the price of bread I’ve no idea.”

 

[inocente]

This plays a role in ethics, but it can’t be the central role. Otherwise, ethics would simply be the task of developing a theory to explain the audience’s biases.

Sure.