Natural Law Bias Against Action

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba_Switzler said:
One example of this is the morality of sexuality. Homosexuality, contraception, and abstinence all frustrate procreation. But the first two are sinful while the last is virtuous.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is not a sin. It is a same-sex passion. It is never a sin until sodomy enters the picture. So for the homosexual, as for the single person, abstinence is a virtue.

Contraception is a sin because it unnaturally interferes with the sexual creative act.

Abstinence in and of itself does not involve the sexual act, and therefore to abstain is not using the sexual organ for an unnatural purpose… The disposition to sacrifice one’s sexuality for the sake of giving one’s self entirely to God is not natural or unnatural, so much as heroic.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Thanks for clarifying, that’s not what I had interpreted from your previous statement.
Click to expand...
Compliance with the natural law, properly understood, just means that we’re being who we are-who we were created to be, no more, no less.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Homosexuality is not a sin. It is a same-sex passion. It is never a sin until sodomy enters the picture. So for the homosexual, as for the single person, abstinence is a virtue.
Click to expand...
Alright, substitute “sodomy” for homosexuality.
Contraception is a sin because it unnaturally interferes with the sexual creative act.
Click to expand...
Yes, we’ve been discussing this at length in another thread. Why is it a sin to interfere with the sexual creative act and not to abstain from sex?

See:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1005419
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1005186
Abstinence in and of itself does not involve the sexual act, and therefore to abstain is not using the sexual organ for an unnatural purpose… The disposition to sacrifice one’s sexuality for the sake of giving one’s self entirely to God is not natural or unnatural, so much as heroic.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the bias of which I speak.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Yes, we’ve been discussing this at length in another thread. Why is it a sin to interfere with the sexual creative act and not to abstain from sex?
Click to expand...
It is in all cases a virtue to abstain from sex outside the marital bond.

If a single person remains single all his life and does not abstain from sex, he commits the sin of fornication. He clearly uses the sexual act for sexual gratification, not because he recognizes that his sexuality comes from God and was given to him for the express purpose of having a wife and children.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is veering into objectice teleology, which is the subject of another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1005419

But let me note here that homosexual activists scream loudly that they were created to be homosexual. They are just being who they are.
Click to expand...
If true, then they’re necessarily in compliance with the natural law. The real point is that such a law-objective morality- exists. There are some acts which are intrinsically right and some which are wrong for all men in the absolute sense.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
But let me note here that homosexual activists scream loudly that they were created to be homosexual. They are just being who they are.
Click to expand...
Lots of people scream about lots of things. The screaming itself has nothing to do with objective reality. Men can be more attracted to men than to women, and the same for women. The attraction is legitimate as far as forming bonds of friendship goes. That has nothing to do with the fact that sexual union outside the marital bond is immoral. In the case of same-sex sex, the violation is both immoral and unnatural.

There are consequences both for immoral and unnatural acts. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals will experience these consequences, and the consequences will be all the more deadly the more promiscuous the sexuality.
 
If you don’t have a natural inclination towards a certain behavior, than not doing that behavior would not really be abstinence at all, at least not in a virtuous sense. Example: The Church requires abstinence of meat on Fridays during Lent. But if I’m a vegetarian and meat does not appeal to me at all, then I am not practicing abstinence by “abstaining” from meat. I am doing something that I normally would do. This would not be a virtue, it would be morally neutral. Abstinence in the Catholic sense means refraining from something that you normally would be inclined to do as a type of self sacrifice for a greater good. If there is no self sacrifice involved, then it is not virtuous. I would even say that if it is not for a greater good in some manner, than it wouldn’t be virtuous in that case either, but I may be wrong about that.

The same applies to sexual abstinence. If an individual is not interested at all, than there is no virtue in refraining from doing something that they have no drive for. While you could say they are technically abstaining, this type of abstinence is not virtuous. They may be living according to natural law, “naturally”, but this is not virtuous itself.

On the other hand, I did think of an occasion when sexual abstinence could be a sin of omission. Within a marriage it could be sinful for one spouse to decide to practice abstinence, for whatever reason, without the others consent for an extended period of time (1 Cor 7:1-7).
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I have long noticed a subtle bias in Catholic theology against action and wondered where it comes from. Catholic morality does, of course, recognize since of omission as well as commission, but they hardly seem balanced.

One example of this is the morality of sexuality. Homosexuality, contraception, and abstinence all frustrate procreation. But the first two are sinful while the last is virtuous.

Thomistic Natural Law makes the distinction between using sex contrary to it’s purpose and function and not using it at all. Here, at least, there is no sin of omission. And this is true of Natural Law generally.

The natural conclusion to be drawn is that, when in doubt, be passive to avoid sin.
Click to expand...
If you have not already seen it, Charles Rice’s *50 Questions on the Natural Law *(Revised Edition) addresses some of your concern. On page 320 he cites both Aquinas’ and Augustine’s views on unnatural sin, specifically sodomy.
 
St_Francis said:
Abstinence is not-doing the act. Some may abstain in order to avoid procreation, but how can they be said to frustrate the end of an act if they are not engaging in the act?
Click to expand...
👍

There is no commandment against abstinence and chastity.

If there were, Jesus would have been a sinner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top