Question about intersection between religion and science

[grannymh]

In the beginning of Humani Generis, there is an interesting comment about divine revelation being considered as “morally necessary”.

To me, that appears to be why affirming the origin of the human species as beginning with the first human man is so important in paragraphs 35, 36, 37.

From Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
Venerable Brethren,
Greetings and Apostolic Benediction

Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.

skip

1. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]
2. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.

Quick comment about paragraph 4. Please read chapter 14, Gospel of John.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Originally Posted by **EnglishTeacher **
Science only supports the principle of marriage being between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are very obviously biologically designed for each other. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, clearly are not. What do you think science could discover about the act of sodomy that would make the Church say that it could be substituted for the marriage act?

In fact, what we do know about it through science shows that nature itself rebels against unnatural sexual acts. For example, the body becomes confused when seminal fluid is deposited in the wrong place. The sperm fuse with whatever somatic body cell they encounter, often leading to cancerous malignancies. This is why the rate of anal cancer is astronomically higher in gay men than in the general population. Not to mention that men practicing homosexuality also have a much higher risk for Hepatitis B and C, syphilis, and AIDS.

Doesn’t science also support that humans are not monogamous by nature, and that monogamy is a cultural construct? Doesn’t science also show that homosexuality is found in about 300 species?

I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Even in nature, homosexuality is an aberration and not the norm; and furthermore, animals do many things that would be immoral for humans to do (e.g., killing and/or eating their own young, preying on the weak and vulnerable, forced mating, etc.). As to monogamy, why is that any more a “cultural construct” than any other facet of morality? Unlike animals, humans have rational souls (not driven by mere instinct like animals, and able to make choices between right and wrong).

None of that changes that fact that a man and a woman are designed for each other, while and a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not. That is a biological fact that will not and cannot change. Have you read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, or a good summary of it? If not, you really should. That puts all of these issues into perspective.