Scientific cause of homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zimm3r
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leegal said:
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?”
Click to expand...
Both are irreformable. It seems a distinction regarding assent, not whether such a teaching may ever be reversed.
 
Leegal said:
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?”
Click to expand...
Overturning this would be similar to overturning murder or adultery.
 
Nate13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the teaching remains true – but can be expanded or explained or added to if the infallible teaching is “tenenda.” And this is within the Sacred Magisterium.

Further, there’s a difference between a teaching of the Sacred Magisterium (always infallible – but with two distinctions) and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (not necessarily infallible but if it is it rises to the Sacred Magisterium).

“Infallible” alone is not an answer because the Church has two terms for infallibile in the Sacred Magisterium. Even the Pope is not infallible in opinion. He must speak “ex cathedra.” The Magisterium itself has 3 levels, two of which – the Universal and the Ordinary are “potentially” infallible. My next question is the Church’s teaching on homosexuality of the Sacred Magisterium or the Universal or Ordinary Magisterium? Usually social questions fall under the Ordinary, which is not infallible unless the teaching rises to the Sacred.

The whole question was one of us trying to know what the Church will do based on an unknown etiology.

The question cannot be dismissed on “infallibility” alone because infallibility is very complex too, even as acknowledged by the Church.
 
The Magisterium has Definitive and non-Definitive teachings. We must believe the non-definitive, but to a lesser degree.

Prohibition against homosexuality is a Definitive teaching. That we must accept. Infallibity is hinged upon whether or not the teaching is Definitive.

Further research shows the Council of Trent was infallible – but some of the teachings were infallible “de fide tendenda”, and so further evidence led to an expansion or evolution of certain teachings, such as the example given.

And nowhere did I suggest that anything be reversed or overturned. I did say that “de fide tendenda” teachings have evolved or been expanded upon or added to after further facts and evidence has come to light. It did not remove the infallibility of the teaching, but expanded on the teaching.
 
fix said:
I did. I do not see your point. The proscription regarding homosexual acts cannot evolve to a point where the acts are morally licit.
Click to expand...
I was responding the the question as to whether infallibility can change. Not so much as change, so that one wants to read a 180 degree change or reversal, but that as I said with Pope Gregory and the Council of Trent – the teaching on sex had only a single purpose in marriage has certainly evolved over the centuries. So, it was an example of a teaching that evolved, while remaining infallible – the purpose was not altered but the definitions were added to when speaking of purposes in marriage. Afterall, where would marriage be if there were not a unifying purpose to it as well?

If that’s change – then call it change. I said it evolved and was added to be more in line with contemporary thought that sex and the sacrament of marriage had another purpose too - the unification of two people through the act, which the Council of Trent and Pope Gregory would deny.
 
Leegal said:
I was responding the the question as to whether infallibility can change. Not so much as change, so that one wants to read a 180 degree change or reversal, but that as I said with Pope Gregory and the Council of Trent – the teaching on sex had only a single purpose in marriage has certainly evolved over the centuries. So, it was an example of a teaching that evolved, while remaining infallible – the purpose was not altered but the definitions were added to when speaking of purposes in marriage. Afterall, where would marriage be if there were not a unifying purpose to it as well?
Click to expand...
The marital act is not intrinsically wrong.

How does claiming what you have about marriage, and that is debated btw, relevant to acts which are never licit?
 
The effect of genes or physiology on our sexual behavior can never be the same as, say, being genetically programmed inescapably to have green eyes or black hair. There are too many other factors involved in our sexuality for that.

At most it would be something similar to a ‘fat gene’ or the ‘breast cancer gene’ - both of which mean increased risk or likelihood, not certainty or anything like.

Someone who has a ‘fat gene’ or the ‘breast cancer gene’ may find it more difficult than a non-genetically predisposed person to avoid putting on weight or getting breast cancer, but far from inevitable. Just means more care needs to be taken by those people who are more susceptible.
 
Maybe my question was misunderstood so some clarification.
Code: 
 - Homosexuality as in living a homosexual lifestyle not SSA
 - My point with sex being different from other things (my example was clothes) is that it would not be the same as a "food" gene because sex is on another plane then food. Sense well Pope John Paul II wrote a whole book, *Theology of the Body* on it (but not eating or clothes).
- Something causes the difference between hetero and homo sexuality and if it was ultimately determined by genes whether you had predominantly SSA feelings or OSA you can't really reverse that and it is not a choice, it is your sexual being something Pope John Paul II felt was important and emphasized with *Theology of the Body*.
Also from the why atheists sign up on CAF well I did it to learn others morals. Also some seem to think atheists sign up to just cause trouble, I know this is not a light topic so I would like to emphasize I am not trying to troll.
 
Zimm3r said:
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?
Click to expand...
If there was a scientific reason then identical twins would always have the same sexual preference. That has proven to not be the case. If there is no choice then why are there bisexuals? It’s the same for everyone, genetics, environment, parenting.
 
Zimm3r said:
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?
Click to expand...
If science found that something was going wrong during fetal development, then it wouldn’t take long for science to begin monitoring fetuses and figuring out how to make adjustments so things don’t go wrong, either through gene therapy, or hormone level adjustments.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if fetuses diagnosed as carrying such a defect would need the Catholic Church to protect them in utero!

How ironic that would be. :rolleyes:
 
Melinda_Selmys said:
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.
Click to expand...
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

most honest answer I’ve ever read here at CAF on this topic… props to you.

people always want to cherry-pick the evidence that supports their preconceived notions, whether it’s evolution, homosexuality, etc. we can still hold firm in our faith in the face of science; they aren’t incompatible like some think.
 
Tietjen said:
Sorry, none of my cousins swing from trees.
Click to expand...
Even though you dont want it, your cousins are swinging from trees by the thousands. You know facts do not depend on opinions.
Dont take at heart. St. Francis called Brother Wolf and Brother Sun and Sister Moon. We are created by God…
 
friendster324 said:
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

most honest answer I’ve ever read here at CAF on this topic… props to you.

people always want to cherry-pick the evidence that supports their preconceived notions, whether it’s evolution, homosexuality, etc. we can still hold firm in our faith in the face of science; they aren’t incompatible like some think.
Click to expand...
God of Science is the Same as God of Faith.
Simply most of us see only one side of the coin and attack the other side as a foreign body…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top