Homosexuality And Original Sin

[InSearchofGrace]

I have as yet to read your subsequent posts, catholic1, but just finished my reaction to your post as below

…This is a good illustration to make to show that something made for one thing can be abused. A mouth made to aid in cultivation nutrition and be abused to harm the body. But just because something is not used for its most apparent purpose does not equate to an immoral condition: The mouth can also be used for kissing, but it is not as if humans have evolved mouths for this purpose.
…

Catholic morality runs along side the precept of natural law, which for clarification is not the same as laws found or noted in nature. Animals are subject to eating and mating instincts that we humans share except we are also guided by the higher faculty of reasoning and a moral code. This code, that which provides a sense of right and wrong in undertaking certain actions we do at will, is consistent with health preservation and life affirmation / creation.

I mentioned the pica condition to illustrate that the object of the act of eating (of course via the mouth) does not comport with natural order and teleology. The behavior is conceivable with some people actually indulging in ingestion of non-food, neither appropriate nor healthful in the long run.

A parallel is made to same sex attraction, the object of attraction being not of the right sex. Acting on the attraction is analogous to someone ingesting non-food. Pleasure is sought and experienced for pleasure sake, without purpose, potentially harmful. Even if harm is not immediate as a result of homosexual sex, indulgence in the act (repeated) has untoward consequences, to the body and soul.

Obviously, we are not talking about two homosexuals who present as a couple, are chaste, loving each other deeply, looking for the good of the other, but never expressing their mutual love sexually. In fact, most here would say that would be a high form of friendship. It seems the arguments on exactly what and when homosexual behavior crosses moral lines in the context of a committed relationship needs spelling out. If the relations has any erotic element, leading to genital expression, the behavior and relationship cross moral lines. No claims of fidelity or commitment can make it moral.

Deo Volente posted on Page 19

Keep in mind that physical expression can include holding hands, cuddling up while eating popcorn and watching a movie, resting your head on your beloved’s shoulder…

The scenario is certainly romantic and sweet, not classifiable I think as intrinsically disordered or sinful. Note that the statement uses the bolded word which means gay sex acts like sodomy, mutual masturbation or variations thereof as expression of homosexual love are not excluded.

To someone with the homosexual inclination, one in a committed relationship or habituated in the practice of homosexuality, the Catholic moral precept on the subject would be hard to accept. It is indeed a difficult moral code to live by. The good news is we can find meaning and purpose in life without the belief that it is only possible when one is sexually partnered, in a relationship. There are enough heterosexuals with no prospect of finding a partner due to a physical if not mental condition or station in life. Conversely, I would submit that a male or female with a sex addiction (there are people with said disorder, with compulsion to have sex with whomever of the opposite sex that is available) also have a heavy cross to bear. Life is likewise lonely for such an individual, as there would be little or no hope in meeting a partner who would be willing to stick around.

Mastering our sexuality is hard, harder for some than others, yes, but possible. In honoring our bodies and those of others, we follow the natural law written inside us.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!
…
It’s always good to see you around, InSearch.

Well, I know you always check the threads, Mark, ready to re-state your arguments just in different words and elegant style as your usual in threads of the past years. I did not come across your spiel on flourishing this time but it was implied. At any rate, nothing new. It is not important to react to your comments about not considering context and lacking imagination on my part. My only reaction to yours would be on

This sounds dangerously close to a Protestant sola scriptura type of argument. …

Not to worry, I am not going Sola Scriptura at all. Many here myself included appreciate the Bible as a faith record, to be read in context as you point out. For instance, I do not regard that the punishment in the Leviticus clobber verses on homosexual actions (deserving death) as binding. The NT clarified to us that the punishment would be in the life after for the unrepentant who would not attain the reward of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Grace & Peace!

Not the point, Zoltan. That we moderns may find such a thing as loving-intimacy-without-a-sexual-act unimaginable doesn’t mean that folks in other times and in other places were as unimaginative as we appear to be.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

No argument there…

As I said in a previous post…if someone tells me that they engage in "loving-intimacy-without-a-sexual-act…who am I to judge? I believe them. Just as I believe the person who tells me he enjoys marijuana…but does not inhale.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace …]

…

Not to worry, I am not going Sola Scriptura at all. Many here myself included appreciate the Bible as a faith record, to be read in context as you point out. For instance, I do not regard that the punishment in the Leviticus clobber verses on homosexual actions (deserving death) as binding. The NT clarified to us that the punishment would be in the life after for the unrepentant who would not attain the reward of the kingdom of heaven.

Oops, the above had an important final sentence I inadvertently left out on posting. Added and bolded as below.

…

Not to worry, I am not going Sola Scriptura at all. Many here myself included appreciate the Bible as a faith record, to be read in context as you point out. For instance, I do not regard that the punishment in the Leviticus clobber verses on homosexual actions (deserving death) as binding. The NT clarified to us that the punishment would be in the life after for the unrepentant who would not attain the reward of the kingdom of heaven.

The understanding of the sinfulness of homosexual practice however remains through our time, regardless of “new” information, labels and recent social construction now associated with homosexuality.

 

[Thorolfr]

Even if harm is not immediate as a result of homosexual sex, indulgence in the act (repeated) has untoward consequences, to the body and soul.

What kind of “untoward consequences” would happen to the bodies and soles of a same-sex couple in a monogamous sexual relationship and do you actually have any proof of these “untoward consequences”?

 

[catholic1seeks]

I mentioned the pica condition to illustrate that the object of the act of eating (of course via the mouth) does not comport with natural order and teleology. The behavior is conceivable with some people actually indulging in ingestion of non-food, neither appropriate nor healthful in the long run.

A parallel is made to same sex attraction, the object of attraction being not of the right sex. Acting on the attraction is analogous to someone ingesting non-food. Pleasure is sought and experienced for pleasure sake, without purpose, potentially harmful. Even if harm is not immediate as a result of homosexual sex, indulgence in the act (repeated) has untoward consequences, to the body and soul.

This assumes what the purpose of sex is. The issue of concern is whether or not the Christian understanding of sex is correct when we limit it to the biological functions of producing a child – i.e., “every sexual act must be ordered to procreation.” I do not think natural moral law itself is giving us this picture of sex here; I think it is a religious viewpoint seeking justification through a religiously-inspired natural law theory.

“Pleasure,” “indulgence,” “without purpose.” These words you use may hint at why certain people, including yourself, have a hard time understanding how sex between homosexual persons can be meaningful, self-giving, and an expression of love. Is heterosexual sex sought after for “pleasure” or “indulgence”? It can be abused for these ends. But just like a heterosexual couple in love, a homosexual couple at times wishes to express their mutual love for each other in one of the most intimate, tender, and vulnerable ways they can.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Is the desire for gay sex the entirety or only a small part of homosexuality?

The desire for gay sex is part of and an inherent element in homosexuality. The desire may just be a big or small part of the condition, some dwelling on it too much and some less. A transient homosexual feeling does not make one a homosexual. Situational homosexuality (in prison) is arguably not homosexuality. For sure, someone without the desire to engage in gay sex (and all behavior leading to it) is not a homosexual.

Per the Catechism

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or **predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. **

Per the dictionary, the meaning of homosexuality is

noun
1.
sexual desire or behaviordirected toward a person or persons of one’s own sex.

Deo Volente is discussing theology which has a tendency to sound word and obtuse to a layman.

Definitely wordy. He might take exception to your “obtuse to a layman” description, but his postings characteristically takes a reader to places that obscure his message. But as another member has remarked, the message is about a personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Rau]

This assumes what the purpose of sex is. …

If one thinks narrowly around the “purpose” of a thing, such as sex, one can be led to believe that any application of it that serves at least one “purpose” must be OK.

I think that leads to wrong conclusions. What should be considered is the nature of sex. Consider men. Their sexual acts deliver semen. Why is that? Surely it suggests something about the nature of sexual intercourse, the appropriate ‘venue’ (context) for sexual intercourse? And does the fact that a man may desire sexual activity in a different context change the nature of the male act itself - clearly no.

Some may object to this reasoning on the grounds that no one argues that the emission of semen should demand that sex should only be pursued with the intention (perhaps even, probability) of conception. But this again ignores our nature: women, while evidently designed to join with a man, are not continuously able to conceive - their nature is to be periodically able to conceive (sensible when you think about it…) while clearly remaining the appropriate partner for man.

 

[bjryman]

Actually, I do think that there is a direct link between artificial contraception and same sex relationships and same sex marriage.

All the Protestant denominations had the exact same teaching on contraception as the Catholic Church, from the time of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, all the way up to 1930, when the Anglican church made the first concession on the issue, allowing contraception for married couples for serious reasons. If anything, Protestant denominations were even more stern on the issue than the Catholic magisterium, expecting not just no contraception but large families, particularly so for pastors.

So there was 2,000 years of Catholic teaching on the issue and over 400 years of Protestant teaching on the issue, both identical, until 1930.

But once artificial contraception was widely accepted, accompanied by widespread rejection of Humanae Vitae, what were the results? Contraception broke the link between marriage and procreation. It broke the link between marriage and children. It broke the link between marriage and family. It broke the link between children and parents.

It led to abortion, because contraception fails. It led to fornication, extramarital relations, cohabitation, sex as recreation. That’s when marriage began to die. It led to a 70% out of wedlock childbearing rate in some communities; it led to fatherless children, single mothers, easier divorce, more poverty, less commitment in marriage, fewer marriages.

One can read the statistics of the social consequences of contraception in Mary Eberstadt’s book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill.” We can’t blame gays for the demise of marriage. That was begun with the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. Same sex marriage is merely the most recent result of the adverse social consequences unleashed by the sexual revolution which was enabled and furthered by contraception.

Yes, correctly state a timeline of Christian teachings that go back to Aquinas regarding procreation and sex. You also correctly state the negative implications of contraception OUTSIDE MARRIAGE between a man and a women. My point is that the actions taken outside marriage, is irrelavant to the topic of family planning WITHIN MARRIAGE.

Yet, the Church mostly ties the two together. So, I have been married to one woman for 44 years, raised three children and done the best I can to prepare them to live successfully in the next modern generation of humanity. I planned all this for the glory of God, and to stand in front of Him in judgement of my responsibility and accountability as a provider, protector, plannner.

So, may I humbly suggest that there are many Catholics like me, married for decades, faithfully raising the children, and properly planning for their future, by planning for the children at the beginning.

 

[JimG]

Yes, correctly state a timeline of Christian teachings that go back to Aquinas regarding procreation and sex. You also correctly state the negative implications of contraception OUTSIDE MARRIAGE between a man and a women. My point is that the actions taken outside marriage, is irrelavant to the topic of family planning WITHIN MARRIAGE.

Yet, the Church mostly ties the two together. So, I have been married to one woman for 44 years, raised three children and done the best I can to prepare them to live successfully in the next modern generation of humanity. I planned all this for the glory of God, and to stand in front of Him in judgement of my responsibility and accountability as a provider, protector, plannner.

So, may I humbly suggest that there are many Catholics like me, married for decades, faithfully raising the children, and properly planning for their future, by planning for the children at the beginning.

Yes, of course. The Church does not forbid family planning, just artificial contraception. Of course one must be cautious that the use of natural family planning is not merely a substitute for artificial contraception. And it can also be used for enhancing the chances of pregnancy. I was only pointing out the social costs of the widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception–one of which is actually to discourage marriage.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What kind of “untoward consequences” would happen to the bodies and soles of a same-sex couple in a monogamous sexual relationship and do you actually have any proof of these “untoward consequences”?

The untoward consequences of homosexual activity that effect the body would be unnatural sexual contact that can cause injury. Also, (Here we go again) the likelihood of spreading STDs…even in a claimed-to-be monogamous sexual relationship.

The untoward consequences effecting the soul are clearly spelled out in religious doctrines and teachings of the Church. Essentially…eternal damnation.

 

[clem456]

This assumes what the purpose of sex is. The issue of concern is whether or not the Christian understanding of sex is correct when we limit it to the biological functions of producing a child – i.e., “every sexual act must be ordered to procreation.” I do not think natural moral law itself is giving us this picture of sex here; I think it is a religious viewpoint seeking justification through a religiously-inspired natural law theory.

“Pleasure,” “indulgence,” “without purpose.” These words you use may hint at why certain people, including yourself, have a hard time understanding how sex between homosexual persons can be meaningful, self-giving, and an expression of love. Is heterosexual sex sought after for “pleasure” or “indulgence”? It can be abused for these ends. But just like a heterosexual couple in love, a homosexual couple at times wishes to express their mutual love for each other in one of the most intimate, tender, and vulnerable ways they can.

The purpose of sex is not assumed, it is observed.
An assumption is a conclusion arrived at without direct evidence. Some things are simply a matter of observation.

If I told you the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, would you call that an assumption? No, you would call that an observation. Any reasonable human being can observe the way the sun interacts with the earth, with the aid of what we would call “the common sense”…in other words, many naturally observable truths can be commonly sensed.

Likewise, any reasonable human being can observe the truth that man/woman alone gives human beings existence and is absolutely unique in it’s participation in human existence. No other union can be said to be “the same”.

Note that no Christian morality statements, no scriptures, no Catholic Church teachings, are necessary to observe the truth that man/woman is unique. Even an atheist, at the risk of making himself a fool, cannot deny this uniqueness.

To deny this observation is either deception or insanity, both of which have tragic consequences for human society.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The purpose of sex is not assumed, it is observed.
An assumption is a conclusion arrived at without direct evidence. Some things are simply a matter of observation.

If I told you the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, would you call that an assumption? No, you would call that an observation. Any reasonable human being can observe the way the sun interacts with the earth, with the aid of what we would call “the common sense”…in other words, many naturally observable truths can be commonly sensed.

Likewise, any reasonable human being can observe the truth that man/woman alone gives human beings existence and is absolutely unique in it’s participation in human existence. No other union can be said to be “the same”.

Note that no Christian morality statements, no scriptures, no Catholic Church teachings, are necessary to observe the truth that man/woman is unique. Even an atheist, at the risk of making himself a fool, cannot deny this uniqueness.

To deny this observation is either deception or insanity, both of which have tragic consequences for human society.

The **observation **is that heterosexual sex produces new life. The purpose of sex on a purely animal level is that sex is for reproduction; that is what continues on the species.

But humans are more than mere animals.

The** assumption** is the view you are proposing of a morality based on the physicalist/functional level – the level of biology alone.

 

[clem456]

The **observation **is that heterosexual sex produces new life. The purpose of sex on a purely animal level is that sex is for reproduction; that is what continues on the species.

But humans are more than mere animals.

The** assumption** is the view you are proposing of a morality based on the physicalist/functional level – the level of biology alone.

But humans are more than mere animals.

Surely you aren’t claiming that human beings don’t have bodies.
Or are you claiming we do have bodies along with souls, but the body has little or reduced significance?

If we have bodies, do they mean anything to you?
Is it ok to murder someone else’s body?
Rape?
Ignore the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless?

I am not proposing any moral statements. It’s not necessary. I intentionally left morality our of it, You yourself are talking about the morality of what you call “physicalist” levels of biology, as if we were merely piles of sentiments and emotions in shells of meaningless flesh.
Perhaps you can see the descent into hell this line of thinking can lead to.

Not sure where exactly you stand on human nature and dignity. You make the common observations about human nature, but then deny the significance of those very observations.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The **observation **is that heterosexual sex produces new life. The purpose of sex on a purely animal level is that sex is for reproduction; that is what continues on the species.

But humans are more than mere animals.

The** assumption** is the view you are proposing of a morality based on the physicalist/functional level – the level of biology alone.

Sexual intercourse IS a physical, biological function.

Humans, being intelligent animals with the gift of reason, have the ability to control our animal instincts including sexual drives.

The fact remains…the exclusive purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Since reproduction is necessary for the continuation of humanity, sexual intercourse is designed to be pleasurable. Like eating. If it were not fun…we wouldn’t do it.

Can humans abuse sexual intercourse? Enjoy it just for pleasure? Sure they can. But that enjoyment is not the natural purpose. It is just a side effect.

Homosexuality is a behavior and therefore a choice. It is also a moral choice to go against, not only the natural behavior of humans to mate with the opposite sex, but to go against the societal norms of dating and marrying someone of the opposite sex.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Of course our bodies matter. We are body and soul, and what we do in the body matters.

The issue is reducing sex to a means for procreation, whereby that is the only appropriate way sex can be done.

That’s a religious assertion. The biological observation/truth stands: Biologically and evolutionarily, sex is for the continuation of the species (i.e., for procreation). But saying the sexual act and sexual intimacy’s meaning is only authentically and lawfully fulfilled when sex is “ordered to procreation” reduces sex in terms of external biology only. This reduction forgets that there are those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex; that is as much a biological observation. That sex is only right and good between a man and woman for procreation is an interpretation from natural moral law, which simply assumes what sex is for: a primarily biological purpose.

I think there be good reason that for humans, sex means much more than survival and continuation of the species (“procreation”) only.

 

[clem456]

Of course our bodies matter. We are body and soul, and what we do in the body matters.

The issue is reducing sex to a means for procreation, whereby that is the only appropriate way sex can be done.

That’s a religious assertion. The biological observation/truth stands: Biologically and evolutionarily, sex is for the continuation of the species (i.e., for procreation). But saying the sexual act and sexual intimacy’s meaning is only authentically and lawfully fulfilled when sex is “ordered to procreation” reduces sex in terms of external biology only. This reduction forgets that there are those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex; that is as much a biological observation. That sex is only right and good between a man and woman for procreation is an interpretation from natural moral law, which simply assumes what sex is for: a primarily biological purpose.

I think there be good reason that for humans, sex means much more than survival and continuation of the species (“procreation”) only.

There’s no reduction, just an observation of the wholistic nature of human beings and human sexuality. You can’t observe that sexuality is ordered to procreation on the one hand, and deny it on the other.

You are separating unitive and procreative. In effect, you are the one reducing sexuality to components, based on the whim of the individuals.
I am accepting human nature, in it’s whole entirety, as inseparable. Body and soul are not inseparable.

Consider…your position allows you to ignore a starving human being, because you do not make the inseparable connection between body and soul, in all cases, at all times, in all people.

The Catholic position is not reducing, it’s acknowledging and respecting the whole of a human person.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Of course our bodies matter. We are body and soul, and what we do in the body matters.

The issue is reducing sex to a means for procreation, whereby that is the only appropriate way sex can be done.

That’s a religious assertion. The biological observation/truth stands: Biologically and evolutionarily, sex is for the continuation of the species (i.e., for procreation). But saying the sexual act and sexual intimacy’s meaning is only authentically and lawfully fulfilled when sex is “ordered to procreation” reduces sex in terms of external biology only.

I can’t see how you can consider sexual intercourse to be REDUCED to the continuation of the species.

I would think that the miracle of Procreation would ELEVATE sexual relations to a degree far above any other pleasurable bodily functions.

This reduction forgets that there are those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex; that is as much a biological observation.

No. Attraction to the same sex is not natural.

We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural.

That sex is only right and good between a man and woman for procreation is an interpretation from natural moral law, which simply assumes what sex is for: a primarily biological purpose.

Actually it is a fact of natural law.

I think there be good reason that for humans, sex means much more than survival and continuation of the species (“procreation”) only.

I agree. Sex is fun and it feels good. There are many humans who engage in sexual intercourse for only the pleasure…but that in no way changes the fact that the purpose of opposite sexes and sexual intercourse is procreation.

 

[Rau]

Of course our bodies matter. We are body and soul, and what we do in the body matters.

The issue is reducing sex to a means for procreation, whereby that is the only appropriate way sex can be done.

That’s a religious assertion. The biological observation/truth stands: Biologically and evolutionarily, sex is for the continuation of the species (i.e., for procreation). But saying the sexual act and sexual intimacy’s meaning is only authentically and lawfully fulfilled when sex is “ordered to procreation” reduces sex in terms of external biology only. This reduction forgets that there are those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex; that is as much a biological observation. That sex is only right and good between a man and woman for procreation is an interpretation from natural moral law, which simply assumes what sex is for: a primarily biological purpose.

I think there be good reason that for humans, sex means much more than survival and continuation of the species (“procreation”) only.

It is not being reduced, it is recognized that the procreative dimension is ever-present and integral to the nature of the body and the act. A person with SSA has a bodily design no different than others. They desire something that is inconsistent with their bodies. Evidently, something is amiss, and your assertions that because one desires, therefore the acts are good (in a committed relationship) has no foundation.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I simply don’t see sex’s only legit and right and good purpose to be for procreation. I think it is obvious that biology show that sexual intercourse is primarily for the creation of new life. Biologically, that is true. But to make a moral statement from that is a separate issue. Sex for humans* and not animals is more than just about reproduction. If we really look at it holistically, we see sex being relational and personal, not just reduced to a specific act. There is no doubt in my mind that sexual intimacy is a means of a homosexual couple’s being able express and share love with each other. Their acts may not allow for the conception of babies, but they are expressing something else that we can observe: their homosexual orientations. It is more apparent to us that sex is for babies because most people are heterosexual and the consequences of that sex leads to babies.