Homosexuality and the seperation of Church and State

[ateista]

Belated happy atheist day…4/1/08.

How’s that for equal rights? Your own holiday.

How kind of you! Thank you very much. (And, yes, I understand your meaning.)

 

[ateista]

The idea that there exists an “inborn” attraction is dubious at best. A University of Berkeley researcher Wendy Saltzman has uncovered profound changes in marmoset monkey sexual function as a result of social interaction.

Which is quite interesting, but it has no bearing on the subject at hand. Most people are attracted to the other gender, and that is called “natural” or “inborn” attraction. The opposite is also natural and inborn.

Some people are attracted to blondes, some are attracted to brunettes. Big deal? At the onset of puberty people feel the attraction to others. Those, who are attracted to the same gender are just as naturally attracted as are the others. They do not “decide” something like: “I will choose to be attracted to my own gender”. It just simply happens. And due to the social pressure, they are quite miserable, and the incidence of suicide is observably higher among them.

If there would be real Christian “love” toward these people, they would be embraced for who and what they are, not shunned and criticized for something they have absolutely no control over. This kind of “love” they could certainly do without. As the old saying goes: “with love like this, who needs hate”?

Also, there is a rather steady percentage of homosexuals across different cultures. If it were socially dependent, there would be a variation, and there is not.

 

[Newbie2]

would not one’s human rights be violated and his freedom trounced if he were not able to practice his homosexual acts?

No. Not anymore than the pedophile who wants to practice his acts.

It comes as no surprise that gays are atheist. It is exactly this fork in the road they come to. The cannot be Catholic and gay, so out goes their faith and God. They will ramble on how the Church drove them to it and in a way it did, the truth of the Church, but they make it sound like it’s not inclusive. The Church does not exclude any sinner.

So a person cannot, by your definition, cannot have faith and God and have homosexual inclinations? There wouldn’t be any Catholics if we who sinned were excluded.

Yes it does, but typically as a result of environmental or social stresses like overpopulation, crowding, scarcity of possible mates, etc. – in other words “atypical” social or environmental circumstances.

Researchers at Cambridge University make the following comments:

Not to mention that it’s not exactly a “desire” in animals, but rather an instict.

The opposite is also natural and inborn.

Some people are attracted to blondes, some are attracted to brunettes. Big deal? At the onset of puberty people feel the attraction to others. Those, who are attracted to the same gender are just as naturally attracted as are the others. They do not “decide” something like: “I will choose to be attracted to my own gender”. It just simply happens. And due to the social pressure, they are quite miserable, and the incidence of suicide is observably higher among them.

Some people are attracted to children…what’s the big deal? “It just simply happens”.

If there would be real Christian “love” toward these people, they would be embraced for who and what they are, not shunned and criticized for something they have absolutely no control over. This kind of “love” they could certainly do without. As the old saying goes: “with love like this, who needs hate”?

What is your point here?

 

[ateista]

No. Not anymore than the pedophile who wants to practice his acts.

“Minor” difference: children cannot consent. They are unable to consent.
Do you assert that people “choose” their sexual orientation?

What is your point here?

If you don’t understand it, that is pretty sad. (Hint: hypocrisy!)

 

[buffalo]

So a person cannot, by your definition, cannot have faith and God and have homosexual inclinations? There wouldn’t be any Catholics if we who sinned were excluded.

.

To be Catholic in good standing they would have to be chaste, and not obstinate in promoting the act.

 

[RobbyS]

“Minor” difference: children cannot consent. They are unable to consent.
Do you assert that people “choose” their sexual orientation?

If you don’t understand it, that is pretty sad. (Hint: hypocrisy!)

What do you mean children are unable to consent? You have asserted above that sexual preference is a matter of taste. Children are sensual; they have sexual feelings; so how is it they cannot choose what is pleasant here, just as they can choose ice cream (as opposed to spinich)?

So I guess I ought simply to ask what make pedophila “wrong” IF no force is used? Or is it simply because you find it distastful?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is straying away from the original topic. Please take any side discussions into new or existing threads (of which there are many on the pros and cons of homosexual behavior/origins). Thank you all.

 

[Hubriss]

Here’s my take on Separation of Church and State and homosexuality…

I’m an atheist/agnostic (whatever, same thing to me), but I don’t think gay people should be able to get married in the full social sense that heterosexual people can.

I won’t pretend I completely understand the causes for people to be attracted to the same sex. But by my limited observance of society and homosexual people, and my inexperience as a gay person, I’ve come to the personal conclusion that people are not simply “born gay.” I do acknowledge that there are biological predispositions that make it more likely that some people will end up being gay, but I also think that social influences play a large part in determining someone’s orientation. I’ll give a little example of why I think so. I went to an all boys high school and at the beginning of freshman year there were some boys who were somewhat feminine. Since they attended an all-boys school, they naturally got a lot of **** for it as there was a whole lot of homophobia about. Many of these kids banded together in their own group. In the early years they did date girls, but by the end of senior year, many of them were full fledged homos.

But same sex attraction is completely normal for most humans. Male admiration of heros and upstanding figures usually takes into account looks. It is obvious that femals do the same thing when they admire each other for and complement each other on their good looks. For example, I’m a hetero male but that doesn’t keep me from thinking Brad Pitt is totally hot.

So the first point I’m trying to make from above is that engaging in homosexual acts is largely choice and social influences, yet it is not unnatural.

On to the societal aspect. First of all I’ll say the State has no right to restrict what homosexual people do in privacy. There have been laws in some states against sodomy, and those have been deemed unconstitutional because it is a matter of human freedom and the State has no legitimate interest in regulating consentual sex acts. Furthermore, there is nothing in legitimate law or the Constitution that prohibits the recognition of homosexual unions. Any further debate on the issue of regulation/deregulation of homosexual unions is going to depend mostly on secular human freedom, the necessary and proper clause, and what is in the State’s interest.

Human freedom is the ability to do what one wants to as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. Homosexuality does not infringe on any rights of other people. It is not necessary and proper in today’s society for the State to prohibit any and all sorts of homosexual unions, but it is in the State’s interest to promote the family unit and the union of heterosexual couples to further the growth of the population and the healthy upbringing of its future citizens. It is for this reason that as I do think there could be a State recognition of homosexual couples, they should not be on the same social standing as heterosexual couples, and therefore should not receive all the normal benefits. They should not be able to adopt children. This is somewhat based on a utilitarian view which is the only forthecoming position that one can take to regulate the issue, and yet still remain secular (that I can see).

But the position that most Catholics (and many other christians) take is one based on their theology, which in our society is to be laughed at and disregarded. This is where separation of Church and State comes in. Catholics are always more than welcome to descriminate in their own institution. As we have it today, there are two types of marriages: one recognized by the state, and the other recognized by a certain church. Catholics can ban marriage in their own institution based on theology, revelation or whatever, but that’s not good enough for the State. So since we have this separation, Catholics are welcome to say that they don’t approve of gay marriages, but can’t ban homosexual institutions recognized by government based solely on their religion.

 

[JReducation]

No problem. However, procreation is not “mandatory”, it is optional.

Most, but not all. There is nothing “unnatural” or “exceptional” about having two people to marry, who are way beyond their reproductive age. And - as usual - majority does not count as an argument.

I wonder, if the Church would conduct a thorough examination of tubal ligation, or hysterectomy. I rather doubt it, and also doubt if the Church would require a semen-sample to be examined to show that the sperm-count is over zero. Though I would love to see such requirements as a prerequisite for church-weddings. Can you imagine the uproar?

However, marriage is a secular institution, and there is absolutely no requirement that the couple is a) able, and b) willing to procreate. Many people simply do not want to have children, and that is their own business.

Which, even if were a correct argument, would include a homosexual couple, who are incapable of having children through no fault of their own. Mind you, they still can adopt children.

Since your definition of a “valid” marriage is incorrect, this conclusion is also incorrect.

I beg to differ. This is the official and traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the Sacrament of Marriage. The words are even included in the ritual: mutual love and procreation.

Procreation is not optional for those who can.

Those who before marriage deliberately undergo some form of sterilization to avoid having children and who marry with the intent of not having children, enter into an invalid marriage.

The Church does not have to require a medical examination to perform the wedding. The marriage is really performed by the couple, the deacon or priest are the Church’s witness to the marriage. The couple and God know whether the marriage is a valid covenant or not. You can fool the Church, but you cannot fool yourself or God. Therefore, the marriage is invalid, because it fails to meet the requirements for a valid sacrament.

Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (Catehcism of the Catholic Church

As you can see both theology and law require that procreation be part of marriage for those who are physically able to procreate. An elective sterilization prior to the marriage with the intent of entering the marriage unable to procreate is a deception, not a natural or health condition.

JR )

 

[JReducation]

To tie in my prevous post No. 49 to the original thread I pose this simple syllogism.

Presmise 1: A valid marriage has two goals the communion of love between the spouses and procreation that results from that communion, unless it is accidently impaired by health or nature.

Premise 2: A same sex couple can love each other, but there is never has been a natural possibility for procreation resulting from such love.

Conclusion: Therefore, a same sex couple cannot validly enter into a marriage convenant because one of the two goals of marriage has never been possible between persons of the same sex.

In this case, citizens do have a right to inform the State that it cannot call a relationship a marriage, because it is not a valid marriage. The State is in error. The State can call it anything else it wants that accurately describes the relationship, but it cannot call it using a term that does not accurately describe it. Marriage does not accurately describe such a relationship.

The State can even grant legal rights to people in such relationships, as long as those rights are not rights that properly belong to the marriage covenant, such as children. But other rights, such as common property rights, healthcare rights, protection against abuse or discrimination, protection against hate crimes, even the righ to live under the same roof.

The Church does not teach that two people of the same sex, gay or straight, cannot love each other or share material property or even a home.

As to the sexual dimension, the moral rules regarding sexual intercourse are the same for every human being.

The Church is not anti-gay. It is pro life and pro marriage. There is a difference. The Catholic citizen of any country has to be pro life and pro marriage. He or she must also be anti abuse of any group of people, including gays and must welcome into the parish community all people who want to share our faith, even if they have sinned.

Take for example the case of Tony Blair. Tony Blair voted pro abortion and pro gay marriage, but was received into the Catholic Church and was not required to recant the positions that he took when he was Prime Minister.

The Church simply said that Blair has the faith necessary to be received into the Catholic Church and has some areas where he has to develop and grow, just like many of us.

There is not discrimination against those who are gay or who are pro gay. The issue is that the State may not define something incorrectly. Marriage has a correct definition that has been handed down to us through sacred tradition, scripture and the Magisterium. Citizens have the right to expect the State to define things correctly.

JR

 

[ateista]

To tie in my prevous post No. 49 to the original thread I pose this simple syllogism.

Presmise 1: A valid marriage has two goals the communion of love between the spouses and procreation that results from that communion, unless it is accidently impaired by health or nature.

Premise 2: A same sex couple can love each other, but there is never has been a natural possibility for procreation resulting from such love.

Conclusion: Therefore, a same sex couple cannot validly enter into a marriage convenant because one of the two goals of marriage has never been possible between persons of the same sex.

Your premise 1) includes the concept “impaired by nature”, which applies for people of the same gender. As such you undercut your own premise 2).

In this case, citizens do have a right to inform the State that it cannot call a relationship a marriage, because it is not a valid marriage. The State is in error. The State can call it anything else it wants that accurately describes the relationship, but it cannot call it using a term that does not accurately describe it. Marriage does not accurately describe such a relationship.

Inform of their opinion, yes. Force it to act based upon their opinion, no. Because no matter how strongly you assert, it is merely your opinion.

The State can even grant legal rights to people in such relationships, as long as those rights are not rights that properly belong to the marriage covenant, such as children. But other rights, such as common property rights, healthcare rights, protection against abuse or discrimination, protection against hate crimes, even the righ to live under the same roof.

Unclear what you mean by “such as children”. Do you mean adoption?

The rest of your post is agreeable.

 

[Hubriss]

JR, I agree that a recognized purpose of marriage by the State is to produce and raise children, but married couples are in no way required to do so, and a marriage does not become invalid if they don’t.

But procreation and the stable upbringing of children is only one of the recognized purposes of marriage, as the other being the union of love between the two people as they live together. That is why I see no problem in there being a lesser form of union between homosexual couples. Just don’t call it marriage, maybe bbfl (Buttbuddies for life…South Park anyone?) or something.

 

[JReducation]

Your premise 1) includes the concept “impaired by nature”, which applies for people of the same gender. As such you undercut your own premise 2).

Two people of the same gender are not impaired by nature in their ability to reproduce. They cannot reproduce because nature did not intend for two members of the same gender to reproduce. That is nto an impairment. That is their natural state. Otherwise we would have to say that we are impaired by nature because we can’t fly or walk through solids.

Impaired by nature applies to two people who should be able to reproduce, but are not able to, because of dysfunction. This is the definition of impairment in medical science and biology.

Inform of their opinion, yes. Force it to act based upon their opinion, no. Because no matter how strongly you assert, it is merely your opinion.

It is not my opinion. It is moral truth revealed to us.

Unclear what you mean by “such as children”. Do you mean adoption?

Yes. Parenting is the proper role of a heterosexual couple or a single parent. It is not the proper role of a same-sex couple. This also enters into the validity of marriage. When a child is conceived he or she is conceived by parents of opposite genders, because nature intends for a child to have a parent of each gender. Obviously, there are cases when one parent is absent. My case is an example, my wife died when my children were 4 and 9.

They live in a single parent family. But that is not the same as two parents of the same gender. They have two parents of opposite genders, even though one is deceased. For example, when asked on any document my children always write their mother’s name and deceased next to it. But they had a biological and legal mother.

This is why Catholic Charities of Boston Diocese had to stop their adoption programme. Because the law in the Commonwealth of MA wanted Catholic Charities to place children for adoption in home with gay or lesbian couples. This is an implied recognition of the validity of such a union. Which Christians, Jews and Muslims believe is contrary to revealed truth about marriage.

Hope this is clearer.

JR

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

It is equally important to remember several points here.

1. The Church makes a clear distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2. In distinguishing the two, the Church is not anti-gay or anti-lesbian. It opposes a behaviour that violates the sacredness of human sexuality and one of its purposes.
3. Human sexuality has to ends: a) the expression of love and b) procreation. While two people of the same gender may truly love each other, for love is not limitted to heterosexuals, the second end of human sexuality cannot be met through homosexual activity.
4. The Church’s position of homosexual activity is intimately linked to her position of the sacredness of life. Not only must life be protected from conception, but it must be protected until death. Any behaviour that diminishes the dignity of human beings, is a behaviour that diminishes the dignity of life and all that it includes (i.e. sexuality). Therefore, all sexual behaviour (straight and gay) that fails to dignify the human person fails to promote the dignity of life.
5. The bottom line here is not gay or straight people, the bottom line here is sexuality that is in conflict with the dignity of man.

All nations have a moral obligations to protect and promote the dignity of their citizens. And the citizens of all nations have the obligation and the right to demand that their government do so.

JR

that is the best comment thus far thank you! I have been busy with other things then to check the posts but this so far is going very well.

We have gotten a bit off topic though, so let’s now discuss the State and it’s role in homosexuality. We know what the Church thinks and what Her stance is, now what is the stance of the Modern State?

 

[JReducation]

that is the best comment thus far thank you! I have been busy with other things then to check the posts but this so far is going very well.

We have gotten a bit off topic though, so let’s now discuss the State and it’s role in homosexuality. We know what the Church thinks and what Her stance is, now what is the stance of the Modern State?/QUOTE]

Subscript is mine.

That’s a good question. If you’re asking what does the American State think about it, the answer is not clear. It says one thing and does another.

I remember when Clinton ran for President he was going to change the rules in the military concerning gay people. In the end, we ended up with another version of the same circumstance, “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” Well, that’s what people had been trying to do for a long time anyway.

I do believe that our governments, not just the USA, are very arrogant in this regard. They believe that they can legislate morality and redefine relationships.

Do they have a right to do so? I agree with some and disagree with others. Sacramental relationships are not for the State to define. Interpersonal relationships: the State has the duty to protect the individual’s rights in his or her relationshiips with others. I certainly would not oppose the state if it said that one gay partner can include another gay partner in his or her will, medical insurance or social security benefits. Those are financial arrangements. As long as the state calls those relationships by any name other than marriage, it’s up to individuals to enter or not into them.

The Church will not interfere with the free exercise of the State’s duties and oblgiations to its citizens, nor should those of us who belong to the Church.

We simply can’t allow the State to call itself God and define what God has already defined. Financial relationships between people, protection of their right to live with whomever they choose, that’s fine with me. I don’t believe that any intelligent Christian would want to make it illegal for two people of the same gender to setup household. Because at some point you have to be careful how much you empower the State. Look at the Arab States. We don’t want to go in that direction either.

JR

 

[OTavern]

Which is quite interesting, but it has no bearing on the subject at hand. Most people are attracted to the other gender, and that is called “natural” or “inborn” attraction. The opposite is also natural and inborn.

The point, in case you missed it is that individuals can be socialized to desire almost anything – sadism, masochism, pedophilia, beastiality could then, according to you be just as natural and “inborn.” Attraction to the opposite gender is inborn, based upon human reproductive capacity, whereas attraction to the same gender is not “natural” in any such way – it is an attraction based upon socialization.

The bearing that the marmoset monkey research has on the subject is to show that mammals can be socialized to even shut down sexual functioning, so being socialized to desire same sex partners is not out of the question. This shows there is no such innate or natural desire, merely one changed by social experiences. Humans have been socialized to behave in all manner of ways including genocide and cruelty.

The point being that same sex physical relationships are not inherent nor necessary and should be subject to the same moral assessment as any other human behaviour. There is nothing intrinsically “right” about them, despite the attempts of gay individuals to convince everyone that such behaviour is part of their “make-up.”

Some people are attracted to blondes, some are attracted to brunettes. Big deal? At the onset of puberty people feel the attraction to others. Those, who are attracted to the same gender are just as naturally attracted as are the others. They do not “decide” something like: “I will choose to be attracted to my own gender”. It just simply happens.

Certainly it happens because such an attraction could be based upon pre-existing social conditions, but that should not lead us to conclude that it is right or even good. Teenagers are attracted to cigarettes, drugs, violent video games and bullying, and they don’t necessarily premeditate these either. Socialization is a powerful force, can take many forms, operates largely at a subconscious level and lead to all kinds of unwanted behaviours – witness Nazi Germany. I am sure the people of Germany “made choices” on some level but were drawn toward certain unwanted behaviours by the power of the “society” around them.

If there would be real Christian “love” toward these people, they would be embraced for who and what they are, not shunned and criticized for something they have absolutely no control over. This kind of “love” they could certainly do without. As the old saying goes: “with love like this, who needs hate”?

A kind of love that is concerned more with the “good” and “well-being” of the person being addressed is preferred to one that merely says “do what you feel.” If you have raised any children, you would realize that part of loving them is to “talk some sense into them” every now and then because the choices they “want” to make are not in the final analysis “good” for them. This holds true of adults as well.

People constantly do things they are emotionally drawn to which turn out to be huge mistakes in judgement. “Loving” persons are often put in the position of having to use their good judgement to “straighten out” those caught in the throes of an emotionally charged moral dilemma. It is often part of life and we are even compelled by law to do so – bars in many parts of the world must, by law, refuse to serve patrons who have lost the capacity to make good judgements due to alcohol impairment.

The moral “high road” attitude you present here is another way of saying "let people screw up if they choose because it’s no skin off my nose. MYOB. Unfortunately, if you feel morally compelled to “love thy neighbor” you also feel morally compelled to point out when behaviours and inclinations are potentially disasterous. It’s the “loving” thing to do, even if it makes you unpopular.

Also, there is a rather steady percentage of homosexuals across different cultures. If it were socially dependent, there would be a variation, and there is not.

I am quite certain you do not have the data to back the claim that there is no variation - historically. However, in case you missed it, the media and Internet have made the Global Village a very homogenous place lately. Regardless, the larger question should be: What particular social conditions lead individuals towards same sex preferences?

 

[Newbie2]

“If there would be real Christian “love” toward these people, they would be embraced for who and what they are, not shunned and criticized for something they have absolutely no control over. This kind of “love” they could certainly do without. As the old saying goes: “with love like this, who needs hate”?”

“What is your point here?”

“If you don’t understand it, that is pretty sad. (Hint: hypocrisy!)”

Wait a minute…You wrote, “If there would be real Christian “love” toward these people, they would be embraced for who and what they are, not shunned and criticized for something they have absolutely no control over.”

Agreed, except for the part about “control over” (when it comes to action) but agreed in full if you’re pointing out such an orientation.

But then you say, “This kind of “love” they could certainly do without. As the old saying goes: “with love like this, who needs hate”?”

?? Are you saying that “they” could do without “real Christian love” or some other kind of love? It’s not clear from the way that you wrote it. It seems that you may be referring to something other than "real Christian love, no?

 

[OTavern]

Also, there is a rather steady percentage of homosexuals across different cultures. If it were socially dependent, there would be a variation, and there is not.

The research shows there actually is great variation in incidence among cultures that vary greatly in how they are organized and function.

If all ethnic groups share almost all their genes, we can make two assumptions about any behavior that is claimed to be genetically determined:
• It will be very predictable, specific in nature and similar all over the globe.
• It will be present at roughly the same incidence in all cultures.

Now, let’s recapitulate.
• Many genes, maybe hundreds, are involved in human behaviors.
• Behaviors affected by many genes will change very slowly over very many generations. That is, they will be very stable for centuries, with only minimal changes from generation to generation. This is true not only in families, but also in cultures.

If we look at homosexuality, we find none of these characteristics of genetic properties.

• There is a huge variety of homosexual practices between cultures and even within them.
• The incidence of homosexuality has varied considerably in different cultures. In some cultures, it has been unknown; in others, it has been obligatory for all males.
• There have been, and are, rapid changes in homosexual behavior - even over a lifetime. Not only that, but entire types of homosexuality have disappeared over the course of just a few centuries.

In fact, anthropologists have found such huge variations in heterosexual and homosexual practice from culture to culture, and such sudden changes in sexual practice and orientation, even over a single generation, that they mostly want to say that all sexual behavior is learned.

From: My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead

Those findings seem quite clear that there is nothing “intrinsic” about same sex orientation. It is learned or acquired and as such, subject to moral assessment. The “innate” orientation argument ought to be tossed.

The role of the state then, should definitely not be to entrench same sex orientation as a “human right,” but as an individual choice left open to scrutiny in terms of its benefit or harm to other social institutions.

 

[brandymmiller]

I have a post in my blog about this topic. The sole purpose for which God created human beings is to love Him and to be loved by Him. All the gifts that we are given are to support that purpose, including the gift of sexuality. The gift of sexuality allows us to fulfill God’s commandment to us to be fruitful and multiply in a way that stays true to our purpose of loving Him and being loved by Him ONLY when we use it as we are supposed to use it: between man and woman in holy matrimony. Homosexuality is an inappropriate use of our gift of sexuality, and because of that it is a sin, and a serious sin at that. We no longer impose the death penalty for it, as we no longer do for fornication or adultery, but that does not stop it from being a sin.

Furthermore, the argument that we should permit it or recognize it as natural because there is a genetic component to it is invalid. There is a genetic component to every sin ever committed since Adam and Eve. Original sin altered the genetic code and introduce death, disease, and disfunction into what had been pure. As Christians, we are called not to give in to our sinful impulses but to step up to the plate and bear our cross whatever that cross may be and call upon Christ and the Holy Spirit to remain faithful in spite of that burden and to use that burden as Christ did, for the betterment of others. It is not wrong to have homosexual impulses, it is wrong to act on them.

 

[JReducation]

There is a genetic component to every sin ever committed since Adam and Eve. Original sin altered the genetic code and introduce death, disease, and disfunction into what had been pure.

You need to make sure that the reader understands that this is your interpretation, not the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does not treat the story of Adam and Eve as literary history, but as theology. It agrees that God created the universe, including man, through a process of evolution that took millions of years. In that process, genes come into existence. Their existence is unrelated to moral choices.

To say that there is a connection between genes and moral choice is personal statement, not a teaching of the Church.

JR