Scientific cause of homosexuality

[Zimm3r]

This being my first post I hope I don’t fan the flames two much but I also figure I should ask what I am wondering so…

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

 

[karebear92]

This being my first post I hope I don’t fan the flames two much but I also figure I should ask what I am wondering so…

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

Homosexuality (Same-Sex Attraction) in and of itself is not sinful. It is disordered but not sinful. It becomes a sin when one acts on their sexual desires. It would not change the Catholic stance, as any sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful, and homosexual couples cannot marry.

Welcome to CAF!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This being my first post I hope I don’t fan the flames two much but I also figure I should ask what I am wondering so…

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

We are basically poligamists as our cousins monkeys and that does not make adultery, prostitution, poligamy any good…

 

[Tietjen]

This being my first post I hope I don’t fan the flames two much but I also figure I should ask what I am wondering so…

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

Yes, even IF homosexuality can be proven to be genetic it will still be grave matter, just as acting on heterosexual desires outside of marriage continues to be grave matter. If ANYONE (those attracted to the same sex or those attracted to the opposite sex) engages in the act of sexual relations outside of marriage, they are engaging in grave matter.

Having said that, simply “being attracted” to either sex is not, in itself, grave. So that should be remembered… SSA does not equal homosexuality. The individual is responsible for controlling him/her self and refraining from pursuing the attraction.

 

[Tietjen]

We are basically poligamists as our cousins monkeys and that does not make adultery, prostitution, poligamy any good…

Sorry, none of my cousins swing from trees.

 

[Saburo]

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

You seem to be confusing an inclination with an action. Eating is inseparable from human behavior, but gluttony remains a sin. Rest is necessary, but sloth remains a sin. Sexuality is an element of our humanity, but disordered sexual behavior such as homosexuality - or a whole raft of other disordered sexual behaviors - remains a sin.

Finding a “scientific cause” for SSA would amount to finding something that improves a statistical outcome of SSA. Similar research would find things that improve the statistical outcome for having an inclination to rape, be lazy, steal, or any other inclination which, if acted upon, would become a sin. Having an inclination to do something sinful does not grant permission to do it regardless of how strong that inclination is or how well science proves an inclination is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry. If it did, there would be virtually no chastity in marriage at all, for all men (and most women) are wired to roam.

You will not find an excuse for sin in science, but many advocates of homosexuality have found an excuse for “science” in sin.

 

[Dale_M]

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

The Catholic Church would not change its position. It currently places no blame on someone for having a homosexual inclination, so the cause of such an inclination is irrelevant. No culpability exists, regardless of cause…

The Church does object to homosexual activity, though. This objection is rooted in its understanding of the complementary natures between the two sexes. Man and Woman need one another to be fully realized. Sexual activity has the purpose of uniting members of the two sexes and also in providing for a new generation. Homosexual activity achieves neither of those two purposes, so the Church is opposed to it, just as it is opposed to masturbation. The Church sees both homosexual activity and masturbation as a misuse of sex and contrary to God’s plan.

 

[Wads42]

Homosexuality (Same-Sex Attraction) in and of itself is not sinful. It is disordered but not sinful. It becomes a sin when one acts on their sexual desires. It would not change the Catholic stance, as any sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful, and homosexual couples cannot marry.

Welcome to CAF!

What do you consider to be “acting” on desires?
Presumably “sodomy”; how about oral sex?–afterall, heterosexual couples do that. How about just touching, kissing and caressing, holding hands, and enjoying love and companionship and comradeship?
If masturbation is a “sin”, why do our nearest primate relatives do it, eg Bonobos? Are they not also God’s creatures? If not, -why create them?

 

[karebear92]

What do you consider to be “acting” on desires?
Presumably “sodomy”; how about oral sex?–afterall, heterosexual couples do that. How about just touching, kissing and caressing, holding hands, and enjoying love and companionship and comradeship?
If masturbation is a “sin”, why do our nearest primate relatives do it, eg Bonobos? Are they not also God’s creatures? If not, -why create them?

First of all, I am not a Bonobo. Don’t hold me to a monkey’s standards.There are a lot of things bonobos do that I would not be allowed to do in society. That is why I am human and they are monkeys.

Bonobos are God’s creatures but they are not humans. Humans have a soul; bonobos don’t. I assume you are aware that you are not a Bonobo.

There is nothing wrong with them having a loving relationship as friends, but it is not to be sexual in any way.

Also, having a natural tendency to do something does not make it okay. Some parents have a natural temperament that leads them to beat their kids, but that is not an acceptable practice because it makes the parent feel better.

 

[Nelka]

Satan’s science will come up with anything if it gets people to sin.

They even try to “prove” that God does not exist.

God means everything!
Science means nothing!

 

[Dale_M]

If masturbation is a “sin”, why do our nearest primate relatives do it, eg Bonobos?

Bonobos are fascinating animals, but they are animals and not capable of sin. They follow their instincts and are not held to a higher moral code as God expects from humans. We have received divine revelation whereas they have not.

Incidentally, the closest relatives to bonobos are chimpanzees, which are known to go to war and practice cannibalism. Humans, of course, sometimes practice both war and cannibalism as well. However, a similar behavior in primates doesn’t mean that such behavior in humans is moral.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

What do you consider to be “acting” on desires?
Presumably “sodomy”; how about oral sex?–afterall, heterosexual couples do that. How about just touching, kissing and caressing, holding hands, and enjoying love and companionship and comradeship?
If masturbation is a “sin”, why do our nearest primate relatives do it, eg Bonobos? Are they not also God’s creatures? If not, -why create them?

Bolded is mortal sin,

Underlined isn’t actually sin (assuming by touching you arn’t referring to masturbation)

 

[Nate13]

Bolded is mortal sin,

Underlined isn’t actually sin (assuming by touching you arn’t referring to masturbation)

The underlined could potentially be a sin, depending on the intent of the action. If the intent of the action was to cause sexual excitement it would be a sin.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The underlined could potentially be a sin, depending on the intent of the action. If the intent of the action was to cause sexual excitement it would be a sin.

Okay let me re-explain
it isn’t inherently sinful
Jeremy Taylor:

For as an eye that dwells long upon a star must be refreshed with lesser beauties and strengthened with greens and looking-glasses, lest the sight become amazed with too great a splendour; so must the love of friends sometimes be refreshed with material and low caresses; lest by striving to be too divine it become less humane: it must be allowed its share of both.

 

[Leegal]

This being my first post I hope I don’t fan the flames two much but I also figure I should ask what I am wondering so…

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

You are asking for a guess on what the Church will do based on an assumption not yet proven. It’s like making a prediction. It cannot be answered. We only know what the teachings of the Church are today.

 

[karebear92]

You are asking for a guess on what the Church will do based on an assumption not yet proven. It’s like making a prediction. It cannot be answered. We only know what the teachings of the Church are today.

Not really, as infallible teaching cannot change. We know that homosexual marriages are impossible, and with that sexual activity between two people of the same sex is sinful.

 

[michelleds]

You are asking for a guess on what the Church will do based on an assumption not yet proven. It’s like making a prediction. It cannot be answered. We only know what the teachings of the Church are today.

actually, it can and was answered in several of the first responding posts. any alleged scientific proof will not change the teaching of the Church.

Complementarity, procreation, and sex within marriage are all signposts that show that the causation of homosexuality will not and cannot change the Natural Law and Church teachings.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

The scientific data on the genetic link to homosexuality is actually pretty clear, but no one likes it because it doesn’t really support either side’s preferred hypothesis (the right would prefer if there was no genetic link at all, and the left would prefer if the link were absolute…), so they just end up squabbling over the data. Basically, based on studies of identical twins, it’s clear that there is some genetic component to homosexuality – but the genetics don’t actually determine homosexual attraction or behaviour. This means that there are qualities that a person can have by virtue of their DNA that make it more likely that we’ll develop same-sex attractions, but that this will not necessarily translate to homosexuality in fact.
That said, the genetics don’t really effect the Church’s teaching. The Church sees sexuality in the sense of masculinity or femininity as essential to a person’s identity, but it doesn’t see sexual behaviour as essential in the same way – hence the celibacy of the priesthood. We believe that human nature is fallen, that is, it falls short of the design which God originally had for our kind. Fallen nature is not just psychological, it’s also physical, and in some cases genetic (that’s why some people are born with deeply debilitating disabilities and illnesses which are genetically based.) In the case of homosexuality, it would represent either an obstacle or an inability to the use of sexual faculty for the purpose that it was designed for. A homosexually inclined person, if they follow those inclinations, can’t procreate sexually. DNA doesn’t change that. That said, they can participate in deep and loving same-sex friendships, in artistic forms of creativity, in forms of spiritual fatherhood, etc. I know a number of men who are doing this, and who have conspicuously beautiful and fulfilling lives.

 

[Leegal]

Not really, as infallible teaching cannot change. We know that homosexual marriages are impossible, and with that sexual activity between two people of the same sex is sinful.

Explain “de fede credenda” infallibility and “de fede tenenda” infallible teachings.

While the latter can rise to the former, the latter is infallible based upon historical evidence, facts or logic – and we must accept them. Porn is an example of “de fede tendenda” and has not advanced to to a “de fede credenda” infallibility teaching but must be accepted as it relates to chastity. “De fede tenenda” is an example of the some of the teachings of the council of Trent – infallible but not necessarily to the level of “de fede credenda.” Afterall, the Council of Trent infallibly claimed that the only purpose of sex was procreation. However, that was "de fede “tenenda” because it was based upon an implied logic. Now based on new evidence, facts – and subsequent teachings of the Pius XI and Paul VI, that teaching has been expanded to include a unifying and secondary purpose.

We accept "de fede “tenenda” teachings as infallible because they are – until other facts come in evidence at which time the teaching, still infallible, is not taken away but can evolve or be added or expanded.

I neither advocate for homosexual practices nor do I deny the infallibility of the Church. However, the Church even distinguishes infallibility – and this is but one example.

And my inability to answer the question is based upon facts not yet in evidence. So is the prohibition against homosexuality “de fede credenda” or “de fide tenenda?”

 

[Nate13]

Explain “de fede credenda” infallibility and “de fede tenenda” infallible teachings.

While the latter can rise to the former, the latter is infallible based upon historical evidence, facts or logic – and we must accept them. Porn is an example of “de fede tendenda” and has not advanced to to a “de fede credenda” infallibility teaching but must be accepted as it relates to chastity. “De fede tenenda” is an example of the some of the teachings of the council of Trent – infallible but not necessarily to the level of “de fede credenda.” Afterall, the Council of Trent infallibly claimed that the only purpose of sex was procreation. However, that was "de fede “tenenda” because it was based upon an implied logic. Now based on new evidence, facts – and subsequent teachings of the Pius XI and Paul VI, that teaching has been expanded to include a unifying and secondary purpose.

We accept "de fede “tenenda” teachings as infallible because they are – until other facts come in evidence at which time the teaching, still infallible, is not taken away but can evolve or be added or expanded.

I neither advocate for homosexual practices nor do I deny the infallibility of the Church. However, the Church even distinguishes infallibility – and this is but one example.

And my inability to answer the question is based upon facts not yet in evidence. So is the prohibition against homosexuality “de fede credenda” or “de fide tenenda?”

This is the first time I have ever heard of the technical terms to describe this, although mentally I made the distinction. Good to know the structure of the Church recognizes that in some cases its teachings hinge on our scientific understandings of things and the in-fallibleness of the teaching is tied to whether that understanding remains true.

However I have to agree with michelleds that the teaching on homosexuality is not dependent on whether or not the cause is completely biological in nature or not.