Question for experts on Natural Law Ethics

[Laurie_Gibson]

**I have a couple of questions for experts on Natural Law Ethics. **

I am not here to debate * but rather to learn what you have to say primarily in order to present the matter fairly to an ethics class.

Natural Law Ethics says that it is wrong to use the sexual organs in such a way as to frustrate their natural purpose which is reporduction. Thus masturbation, gay sex and artificial birth control are wrong.

Question 1
Mr A is a loner who, if he were to marry, would cause unhappiness to a wife and children. So he decides to be celibate.

Father B is a Catholic Priest who has to be celibate in order to practise his vocation.

Now these two are not doing anything wrong - yet by their abstinance they are frustrating the natural purpose of their God-given sexual organs. My question is, 'How is this to be squared with Natural Law Ethics?

On the face of it to refrain from reproduction is just as bad as using the sex organs in such a way that reproduction is not possible.

Question 2

Mr and Mrs X are, sadly infertile and so sex cannot result in reproduction. “Never mind”, says their Priest, “Sex is not only for reproduction, it is also to express your love, Circumstances mean your sex cannot result in reproduction, but it can express love, so it is OK”.

Mr Y and Mr Z are a life-long gay couple. They ask, “Circumstances mean that our sex cannot result in reproduction, but it can express our love, so why is that not OK too?”

Forgive a comment on the sort of reply that I am looking for. Please do not say that the Church has pronounced infallibly against it and so… This is fine from a perspective of Faith but I am keen to know the reasons behind the ruling. The same applies to quoting the Bible - fine if you believe in it, but, again, I am trying to find out reasons behind the quotes.

Natural Law Ethics is supposed to be accessible to Reason alone and hence knowable by people outside the Church.

If there is anyone who can justify/explain the two apparent anomalies mentioned above I would be grateful. I will not subsequently reply to argue or debate, I will simply note what you have to say. Please accept my thanks and those of my class in advance.

Laurie*

 

[Ron_Conte]

Question 1
Mr A is a loner who, if he were to marry, would cause unhappiness to a wife and children. So he decides to be celibate.

Father B is a Catholic Priest who has to be celibate in order to practise his vocation.

Now these two are not doing anything wrong - yet by their abstinance they are frustrating the natural purpose of their God-given sexual organs. My question is, 'How is this to be squared with Natural Law Ethics?

On the face of it to refrain from reproduction is just as bad as using the sex organs in such a way that reproduction is not possible.

The natural purpose of sexual acts is marital, unitive, and procreative. And so any sexual acts that are non-marital, or non-unitive, or non-procreative are contrary to natural law. The use of the genitive sexual faculty is naturally directed toward those three ends. But this applies to acts, not merely to body parts.

Jesus was celibate, and Mary was a virgin, even though it was God’s plan for her to be married and have a child. So this shows that celibacy and virginity are not contrary to natural law.

Also, Jesus taught that all the resurrected just do not marry. Therefore, there is no sex after the resurrection.

[Luke]
{20:34} And so, Jesus said to them: “The children of this age marry and are given in marriage.
{20:35} Yet truly, those who shall be held worthy of that age, and of the resurrection from the dead, will neither be married, nor take wives.
{20:36} For they can no longer die. For they are equal to the Angels, and they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.

 

[Ron_Conte]

****Question 2

Mr and Mrs X are, sadly infertile and so sex cannot result in reproduction. “Never mind”, says their Priest, “Sex is not only for reproduction, it is also to express your love, Circumstances mean your sex cannot result in reproduction, but it can express love, so it is OK”.

Mr Y and Mr Z are a life-long gay couple. They ask, “Circumstances mean that our sex cannot result in reproduction, but it can express our love, so why is that not OK too?”

The natural sexual acts of a married infertile couple are inherently directed toward the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings. It is the intrinsic ordering of the natural marital act toward marriage, union, and procreation that makes the act moral, not the attainment of those ends. So even if procreation is not possible due to infertility or old age, natural marital relations remains moral because it remains inherently ordered toward those good ends.

Unnatural sexual acts (by a man with a woman, or by two persons of the same gender) are not inherently ordered toward procreation. Therefore, such acts are inherently immoral. It is the ordering of an act toward its moral object (its end in terms of morality) that makes the act either good in itself or evil in itself.

Also, unnatural sexual acts are not truly unitive, as God intends union for married human persons, so these acts are not a moral means to express love or affection.

 

[Seatuck]

I don’t think there are any experts on Natural Law Ethics here.

 

[camerong]

You don’t need an expert on natural law ethics to answer these questions. They are common questions addressed many times on this forum and Catholic Answers radio:

As you have stated, natural law ethics states that it is immoral to use sexual organs in a way that frustrates their natural purpose (i.e. conception).

1. A celibate person does not violate this ethical rule because the rule does not require people to use their organs, only to use them in a certain way if they do.
2. An infertile couple does not violate this rule in having sex because, while using their organs, they do not do so in a way to frustrate the purpose of conception. Conception may be highly unlikely, but they are not doing anything to make it that way. In other words, conception is not impossible because of the nature of the act, but because of the circumstances.

A homosexual couple having sex, however, frustrates the purpose because the nature of the act makes conception impossible. Some couples thought to be infertile have conceived through sex; no homosexual couple has ever conceived through sex.

This is a fine distinction, and I’m sure others have explained it much better.