I'm gay. How do I tell my parents?

[PendingTheist]

I stand corrected, I forgot the quotes for forced so you can substitute any allegorical meaning like “strongly advised”.

 

[PendingTheist]

I definitely agree. I don’t think it’s usually a good idea to “fly solo” when it comes to morality. God is our Father, and even if we don’t understand why God is saying something, we ought to obey – so long as we are confident that we are hearing the will of God.

But it’s a different issue when you are discussing things with people who do not accept the authority of the Church.

So whatever God commands, goes?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

First, I need you to give a link or something to your your assertion that Aquinas did not believe in moral dogma. I am not exactly sure what this would mean.

Well, let me clarify. I’m using “dogma” not in the strict sense here. I actually had in mind something more akin to Aquinas’s distinction between natural and supernatural revelation. If I recall correctly, nearly all of the moral law is naturally revealed, which is to say that you do not need to be Christian or to (say) believe in the resurrection to understand why these rules apply.

Aquinas thought that morality was available to natural reason. If Aquinas’s atheist nephew told him he was sexually attracted to other men, Aquinas would not respond by quoting God’s revealed law. He would respond by explaining why homosexual actions are wrong, with or without God’s revealed law.

An ideal moral agent does not obey the commandment not to commit adultery because God commanded it. He obeys the commandment because he recognizes that the action of committing adultery is bad. Blind obedience is good sometimes, but it is not the ideal.

This is a bad philosophy (Conseqentialism? Utilitarianism? Pragmatism?). There are times when one must do the right thing even if there are “bad” consequences. For example, Blanche of Castile told her son, St King Louis IX, that she would rather see him die than to commit a sin. We are assured that God would rather see the world destroyed than for a sin to be committed to save it.

First of all, no, with all due respect, this is not bad philosophy. My entire sentence said that premarital sex was wrong because it tends toward bad consequences and constitutes a breach of integrity. Notice the “and” and the “tends toward”. Also, this list was not meant to be comprehensive.

However, I also must say that Catholicism’s central moral theologians (Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas) all thought that the goal of a blessed human life was happiness. Happiness, you will note, is a consequence. You seem to take it for granted that “consequentialism” is a non-Catholic moral system, but this is probably just because (like most philosophers nowadays) you have conflated consequentialism with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an awful moral philosophy.

If an action is not good for somebody – i.e. if it does not have a good consequence – it is not good. This is not to say that we should calculate every action based on good consequences. But it is to say that we can derive moral norms on the basis of how well these norms lead to human flourishing. That is the basis of all virtue ethics, which is (I believe) the best and most traditionally Catholic moral system.

It is easy to say, this is bad because of this or that result, but to be honest, to me that just leads to moral relativism. Sometimes doing the right thing leads to bad consequences. Sometimes telling your friend that what she’s doing is wrong causes her to be angry with you or even break offf the friendship–bad consequences, altho you have done the right thing.

I agree that there are cases where doing the right thing leads to bad consequences.

Tey that one on a hormonal teen who has never been taught any better.

You think that giving reasons like “this action tends to poison your relationships and lead to STDs” is *less *effective than saying that God forbids the action? Have you tested this theory on actual teenagers? I teach teenagers every day, and I’ve observed exactly the opposite.

Then why is it wrong? Why is it a wrong thing as opposed to a good thing with bad consequences?

What evidence do we have that it is a good thing? That it produces pleasure? That’s not very good evidence. Have you ever been in a relationship with sex but no commitment? I have. Trust me, the experience of using the other person and being used is often overwhelming, in such a relationship. When I lived out the sin, I recognized its wrongness in a way that being told “God condemns this” did not accomplish.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So whatever God commands, goes?

If God really commands it, yes, you can be sure that it’s good. God is, like, all good and all-knowing and stuff, so, um, yeah, you can count on Him to be right about these things.

But the question is how we know that God is telling us something. That is a difficult question, and I’m the last person to deny its difficulty.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just to clarify: The infallibility of the Pope includes both matters of faith and of morals. So yes, while the Church does not delineate every moral dilemma in dogmatic terms, the Church does have the authority to teach morals in a definitive manner.

I assent to this, though I personally have difficulties understanding the dogma of infallibility. Certainly the Church teaches morality in an inspired manner, and the Church is extremely reliable on moral matters.

 

[KrazyKat]

Why do we choose an evil knowing that it is evil? This is a real mystery.

 

[St_Francis]

Just out of curiousity, do you teach philosophy? (I actually have a reason for asking this )

Well, let me clarify. I’m using “dogma” not in the strict sense here. I actually had in mind something more akin to Aquinas’s distinction between natural and supernatural revelation. If I recall correctly, nearly all of the moral law is naturally revealed, which is to say that you do not need to be Christian or to (say) believe in the resurrection to understand why these rules apply.

Oh, now i understand

Aquinas thought that morality was available to natural reason. If Aquinas’s atheist nephew told him he was sexually attracted to other men, Aquinas would not respond by quoting God’s revealed law. He would respond by explaining why homosexual actions are wrong, with or without God’s revealed law.

in response to this and to your comment below about the teens, one big problem back in the 80s when AIDS was being discovered was that homosexual men, despite being informed about the dangers, were still engaging in “risky behavior.”

I notice also that teens, despite the tremendous amount of information they have been given, are also still acquiring STDs and getting pregnant.

So I would propose that there is a range… there are those who won’t sin because they love God, or because they have been taught not to; and another range which is persuadable, and a whole nother range where they will do it anyway. So I agree there is a range where they are persuadable, but I still see there being a range which is not.

An ideal moral agent does not obey the commandment not to commit adultery because God commanded it. He obeys the commandment because he recognizes that the action of committing adultery is bad. Blind obedience is good sometimes, but it is not the ideal.

:~ I don’t know that I agree with this. First, *whose *idea of the “ideal moral agent”? I would think that the person who avoids sin *for the love of God *would be better? No?

OTOH, I can also see a mixture of the two: as one loves God more, he sees the beauty of the ideal created order–he catches a glimpse of God’s dream for mankind. And he acts in accord with this dream because he sees the beauty in it.

First of all, no, with all due respect, this is not bad philosophy. My entire sentence said that premarital sex was wrong because it tends toward bad consequences and constitutes a breach of integrity. Notice the “and” and the “tends toward”. Also, this list was not meant to be comprehensive.

However, I also must say that Catholicism’s central moral theologians (Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas) all thought that the goal of a blessed human life was happiness. Happiness, you will note, is a consequence. You seem to take it for granted that “consequentialism” is a non-Catholic moral system, but this is probably just because (like most philosophers nowadays) you have conflated consequentialism with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an awful moral philosophy.

If an action is not good for somebody – i.e. if it does not have a good consequence – it is not good. This is not to say that we should calculate every action based on good consequences. But it is to say that we can derive moral norms on the basis of how well these norms lead to human flourishing. That is the basis of all virtue ethics, which is (I believe) the best and most traditionally Catholic moral system.

I can see how looking at the broader view: good for human flourishing, works as a standard for considering consequences–that’s what natural law is all about, as I understand it. Looking to see how society functions best? I just know that there are people who don’t get the personal integrity thing and who have that unconscious assumption of invulnerability and so they cannot perceive the bad consequences, esp compared with the good consequence of hanging onto their boyfriend.

I agree that there are cases where doing the right thing leads to bad consequences.

You think that giving reasons like “this action tends to poison your relationships and lead to STDs” is *less *effective than saying that God forbids the action? Have you tested this theory on actual teenagers? I teach teenagers every day, and I’ve observed exactly the opposite.

See above.

I understand what you are saying, but I notice this all still goes on. So… I feel like there is a gap here. I guess I have to think about this.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just out of curiousity, do you teach philosophy? (I actually have a reason for asking this )

Caught red-handed!

Yes, I teach philosophy. So my panties got all in a bunch, I admit, when you said my claim about the immorality of premarital sex was bad philosophy.

(Wait, did I just confess to wearing panties? Oh the humanity!)

in response to this and to your comment below about the teens, one big problem back in the 80s when AIDS was being discovered was that homosexual men, despite being informed about the dangers, were still engaging in “risky behavior.”

Some people – myself included – have a dysfunctional relationship with fear. If I’m afraid of the consequences of something, that often makes me more likely to do it. I don’t know what the psychological explanation for this is, but it’s a very real phenomenon. Perhaps it has to do with a person feeling worthy of condemnation, and so pursuing activities that they know will cause them physical and emotional pain. But, strangely, pursuing these activities – in the short run – takes the pain away. That’s how compulsive activity works.

Now, I don’t think most teenagers live compulsively. Impulsively, yes. Compulsively, no.

Also, there is a huge distinction between saying that the typical consequences of an action make the action bad, and saying that we should motivate people to do the right thing by using these consequences. The best way to motivate people to do the right thing is to bring them to the feet of Christ, and have Him transform them. All other ways involve the danger of turning the person either into a Pharisee.

So I would propose that there is a range… there are those who won’t sin because they love God, or because they have been taught not to; and another range which is persuadable, and a whole nother range where they will do it anyway. So I agree there is a range where they are persuadable, but I still see there being a range which is not.

I have no real comment here, but I love your use of the word “nother”.

:~ I don’t know that I agree with this. First, *whose *idea of the “ideal moral agent”? I would think that the person who avoids sin *for the love of God *would be better? No?

OTOH, I can also see a mixture of the two: as one loves God more, he sees the beauty of the ideal created order–he catches a glimpse of God’s dream for mankind. And he acts in accord with this dream because he sees the beauty in it.

Well, I think the love of God is the ultimate consequence. Aquinas thought that happiness was the goal of all our actions, but that ultimate happiness is only found in knowing and being known by God.

But even this does not explain *why *sin is sin. God’s commands are not arbitrary. We do not obey them because God said so, as if God could just as well have said the opposite. God tells us to obey because following the moral law is good for us, and good for others. Ideally, we are motivated by love for God, ourselves, and one another. Moral actions are moral because they conform to the good of created beings. If premarital sex helped people thrive, it would be morally permissible. But it doesn’t help people thrive.

I can see how looking at the broader view: good for human flourishing, works as a standard for considering consequences–that’s what natural law is all about, as I understand it. Looking to see how society functions best? I just know that there are people who don’t get the personal integrity thing and who have that unconscious assumption of invulnerability and so they cannot perceive the bad consequences, esp compared with the good consequence of hanging onto their boyfriend.

Good example. In this case, the desire to hold onto one’s boyfriend is based on a mistaken conception of love. If your boyfriend will ditch you because you refuse to have sex, he does not really love you. But then he’s not the type of person who will be good for you, in the long run. So what we have here is a person who cherry-picks consequences: she only pays attention to the consequences that she feels like paying attention to. That’s no way to live a life!

I understand what you are saying, but I notice this all still goes on. So… I feel like there is a gap here. I guess I have to think about this.

Well, when I was engaging in premarital sex, I didn’t stop just because I saw how wrong it was. In the perversity of my heart, I *wanted *to use my girlfriend and be used by her. We went on doing this for months. But the whole experience was depersonalizing and sad.

 

[PendingTheist]

If God really commands it, yes, you can be sure that it’s good. God is, like, all good and all-knowing and stuff, so, um, yeah, you can count on Him to be right about these things.

But the question is how we know that God is telling us something. That is a difficult question, and I’m the last person to deny its difficulty.

So basically, even if God came to you, like Paul, and revealed His commands it still comes down to your human intuition to judge if it was truly God, a hallucination or if the Devil changed his appearance from a red dragon with 7 heads and ten horns (Rev 12:3) to the appearance of God. Since you admit it is difficult and we know the Bible is fallible, then make decisions based on reality, reason, evidence and empathy along with others you are in discussion with so your internal mental model is consistent with the external reality model allowing you to make the best possible decisions and avoid making a choice that may hurt others, like flying planes into buildings because you will get 72 virgins or genocide every living thing in a heretic community because God said so or hate and leave your family , sell all that you own to be “perfect” in the Lord’s “eyes”.

 

[Peter_J]

On a purely intellectual level, that is surely what his parents taught him and he remembers that, or telling his parents that he is gay would not have much to do with their identity as Catholics. So on that level, he does know. It is not presumptuous to say that, as it would be if he had no religious training.

No, it is still completely presumptuous to say that kolya111 “knows that what he is choosing to do is wrong in the eyes of God”. Repeating it doesn’t make it any less presumptuous.

 

[Peter_J]

So basically, even if God came to you, like Paul, and revealed His commands it still comes down to your human intuition to judge if it was truly God, a hallucination or if the Devil changed his appearance from a red dragon with 7 heads and ten horns (Rev 12:3) to the appearance of God.

(emphasis added)

Well, I would say “reason” rather than limiting it to intuition. Just as, when Christian leaders disagree about something, I use (or have used) my own reason to figure out who’s right. (I’m Catholic, so that gives you a pretty good idea where I come down on that issue. )

 

[holyrood]

Kolya, before I give any answer, I would like to know why you came to a Catholic forum to ask such a question.

Who knows?

OP does. That’s why I asked him.

Regardless of why he’s here we should try to help him with his issue. Even if you don’t agree with his decisions, he really does seem to love and want a relationship with his parents.

Tone can be hard to discern on the internet, of course, but this answer seems to suggest I said, suggested, or thought otherwise, and seems to be loaded with assumptions and reprimand, that had nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So basically, even if God came to you, like Paul, and revealed His commands it still comes down to your human intuition to judge if it was truly God, a hallucination or if the Devil changed his appearance from a red dragon with 7 heads and ten horns (Rev 12:3) to the appearance of God. Since you admit it is difficult and we know the Bible is fallible, then make decisions based on reality, reason, evidence and empathy along with others you are in discussion with so your internal mental model is consistent with the external reality model allowing you to make the best possible decisions and avoid making a choice that may hurt others, like flying planes into buildings because you will get 72 virgins or genocide every living thing in a heretic community because God said so or hate and leave your family , sell all that you own to be “perfect” in the Lord’s “eyes”.

Um, if God did not make my brain a reliable structure at acquiring the truth about moral matters, then why should I trust my “internal mental model” to help me make the best decisions? Your suggestion relies on faith that the universe is designed providentially.

But, if the world is designed providentially, it stands to reason that it was designed by God. And if the world was designed by God, you might expect that God would help us know what is right and wrong. The Bible is one means of coming to know this. The Church’s tradition is another. Independent moral reasoning is another. These ways all work together, and none of them can stand alone.

I’m not claiming this is an open-and-shut case for divine revelation, but it’s certainly some form of evidence.

 

[Cristiano]

…

An ideal moral agent does not obey the commandment not to commit adultery because God commanded it. He obeys the commandment because he recognizes that the action of committing adultery is bad. Blind obedience is good sometimes, but it is not the ideal.

Are you also saying that the moral agent is not ideal if the person obtains joy from doing the right thing? It looks like that blind alignment to God’s will is the joy that a lot of saints wished for. I am just trying to understand your concept of ideal moral agent.

…

However, I also must say that Catholicism’s central moral theologians (Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas) all thought that the goal of a blessed human life was happiness. Happiness, you will note, is a consequence. You seem to take it for granted that “consequentialism” is a non-Catholic moral system, but this is probably just because (like most philosophers nowadays) you have conflated consequentialism with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an awful moral philosophy.

This statement seems to be more aligned with the concept that blind obedience to God could be an ideal moral agent just because God is good.

If an action is not good for somebody – i.e. if it does not have a good consequence – it is not good. This is not to say that we should calculate every action based on good consequences. But it is to say that we can derive moral norms on the basis of how well these norms lead to human flourishing. That is the basis of all virtue ethics, which is (I believe) the best and most traditionally Catholic moral system.

Your first sentence would be a very good check. Hoever, how do we reconcile this statement with the concept that out of every evil there is a greater good? It looks like that every bad action has a good consequence. Could not this argument lead to moral relativism? What about an action with a double effect?

**
I am not trying to disagree with you. I like the way you express your thoughts and I am trying to have a better idea of how you think. I still have to close on some substantial intellectual gaps that I have in regards to different philosophers’ take on ethics and moral agents and every sensible explanation like yours is helpful**.

 

[PendingTheist]

(emphasis added)

Well, I would say “reason” rather than limiting it to intuition. Just as, when Christian leaders disagree about something, I use (or have used) my own reason to figure out who’s right. (I’m Catholic, so that gives you a pretty good idea where I come down on that issue. )

So basically you are creating your own Gospel according to Peter J using your OWN reason as your guide. Well done. Your way ahead of others who share your faith. At least you would disobey God to sacrifice your child like he tested Abraham to kill Isaac or refuse to kill heretics when Jesus comes again on a white horse with a sword in mouth to strike down the heretics. Bravo, you are using your human highly evolved emotional morality. Doesn’t the Christian disagreement bring you concern to what is true?
Doesn’t the need for Ecumenical Councils, like the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to debate the Trinity and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) to determine the nature of Christ’s divinity indicate the confusion of God’s word and lead to man-made conclusions? Does it not appear man-made and scientifically incorrect when St. Irenaeus asserted the four-gospel canon as being no more or less in number since there are 4 quarters (or corners) to the earth in that they serve as “the ‘pillar and ground’ of the church and spirit of life”. Are we to believe God meant the 27 book New Testament to be debated and agreed by religious authorities for centuries before Bishop Athanasius came up with the 27 book list in 367 AD? Why would an all-perfect and powerful divine being go through the trouble inspiring Biblical authors for hundreds of years only to have originals lost both physically and in translation and then depend on this unreliable book to be preached by fallible men with different interpretations leading to the majority of his creation to damnation? This is not the best or most responsible way of sending the most important message if you truly want to “save” the world.

 

[Captain_America]

So basically, even if God came to you, like Paul, and revealed His commands it still comes down to your human intuition to judge if it was truly God, a hallucination or if the Devil changed his appearance from a red dragon with 7 heads and ten horns (Rev 12:3) to the appearance of God. Since you admit it is difficult and we know the Bible is fallible, then make decisions based on reality, reason, evidence and empathy along with others you are in discussion with so your internal mental model is consistent with the external reality model allowing you to make the best possible decisions and avoid making a choice that may hurt others, like flying planes into buildings because you will get 72 virgins or genocide every living thing in a heretic community because God said so or hate and leave your family , sell all that you own to be “perfect” in the Lord’s “eyes”.

. . . I think you have a problem recognizing what is “reasonable.” We know this varies over time and it varies between persons of the same time period.

“Facts” are bundles of information. Some people’s knowledge of the world around them is better than others because their “bundles”/facts contain more information. For this reason, an adult who says the world is a globe can confuse a child. . . or appear wrong. . . and a child’s counter assertion that the world is flat seems, doesn’t it?, very reasonable, if not factual.

At any rate, it seems to me that people who say “let’s just go on the facts” really are sometimes just saying “come along with me and my values.” I think positivism’s had it’s day and the sun is down on those who think facts in themselves cause values.

What do you think makes a fact a fact?

BEYOND THIS, I think it’s reasonable to think that God is speaking to you. It’s a fuller tug or deeper pull in certain directions.

WITH RESPECT, to the OP: I think it’s important to come to a full understanding of homosexuality. Contemporary media don’t often give a full accounting. I think the church’s position is a sensible one, and I wouldn’t shy away from the “disorder” view of homosexuality. It’s an unusual psychosexual development.

 

[Captain_America]

Um, if God did not make my brain a reliable structure at acquiring the truth about moral matters, then why should I trust my “internal mental model” to help me make the best decisions? Your suggestion relies on faith that the universe is designed providentially.

But, if the world is designed providentially, it stands to reason that it was designed by God. And if the world was designed by God, you might expect that God would help us know what is right and wrong. The Bible is one means of coming to know this. The Church’s tradition is another. Independent moral reasoning is another. These ways all work together, and none of them can stand alone.

I’m not claiming this is an open-and-shut case for divine revelation, but it’s certainly some form of evidence.

This is a pretty good statement, a nice starting point.

 

[PendingTheist]

. . . I think you have a problem recognizing what is “reasonable.” We know this varies over time and it varies between persons of the same time period.

“Facts” are bundles of information. Some people’s knowledge of the world around them is better than others because their “bundles”/facts contain more information. For this reason, an adult who says the world is a globe can confuse a child. . . or appear wrong. . . and a child’s counter assertion that the world is flat seems, doesn’t it?, very reasonable, if not factual.

At any rate, it seems to me that people who say “let’s just go on the facts” really are sometimes just saying “come along with me and my values.” I think positivism’s had it’s day and the sun is down on those who think facts in themselves cause values.

What do you think makes a fact a fact?

BEYOND THIS, I think it’s reasonable to think that God is speaking to you. It’s a fuller tug or deeper pull in certain directions.

WITH RESPECT, to the OP: I think it’s important to come to a full understanding of homosexuality. Contemporary media don’t often give a full accounting. I think the church’s position is a sensible one, and I wouldn’t shy away from the “disorder” view of homosexuality. It’s an unusual psychosexual development.

A fact is an observation that is confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true although never final.

Study more genetics and human behavior. To say it is “unusual” and a disorder is a demeaning opinion rather than an objective observation.

 

[Captain_America]

A fact is an observation that is confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true although never final.

Study more genetics and human behavior. To say it is “unusual” and a disorder is a demeaning opinion rather than an objective observation.

So it is a fact that God exists.

I think it’s entirely objective—how can you not say this? boggles the mind—to say homosexuality is unusual and a disorder. It occurs less frequently than 3-4% of the human population.

There are more redheads.

 

[PendingTheist]

This is a pretty good statement, a nice starting point.

It’s so sad to hear believers self loathing as they are not good enough, they are guilty, vile, helpless, can not go by their own understanding (Proverbs 3:5) and don’t have the skills to understand despite being created in God’s image. Logic, reason and evidence is all we have. I know that sounds sad, but it appears to be true.