The new acceptance of sodomy

[PetraG]

No. Of course not. I am not speaking as a Catholic. It’s the responsible rule of responsible people in a responsible society.

Immediately after referring to freely available alcohol, legal marijuana and sex outside of marriage, you wrote, “Don’t restrict your children from what they can do. Just teach them responsibility so that whatever they do is done responsibly.”

I’d like you to find some secular sources who say it is OK to give minors free access to sex or to alcohol or any other mind-altering or addictive substance and just “teach them responsibility so that whatever they do is done responsibly.” That is terrible parenting advice, and a person doesn’t have to have any religious creed to think so.

 

[IQ170]

Just one question, if I may. Is the word “sodomy” used as a synonym for homosexuality in general? Or male homosexual activities? Or explicitly as anal copulation? Because all these behaviors are very different.

 

[Emeraldlady]

By the grace of God two of my three adult children have remained not just faithful in practice but are deeply involved in Church life in spirituality and outreach. I agree with the authors article but one thing it didn’t address was the problem of traditionalist dissent in undermining the authority of papal teachings. I found that one a big battle in keeping my kids faithful. The horrible force of supposedly good Catholics trying to undermine the current Pope and his teachings has taken a big toll on the parents who have instilled the importance of submitting to official Church teaching. Those types of dissenters don’t seem to understand the damage they are doing to middle of road simple teachers and catechists.

 

[FiveLinden]

This article is one of the worst examples I have seen of the conflation of the sexual abuse of children with consensual sex between adults.

I believe that this conflation is partly behind the widespread abuse of children in the Church; priests and religious wrongly thought that any sin involved was sexual, rather than a sin of abuse and violence against child. Indeed the Church continues to classify both ‘sins’ as breaches of the same commandment.

Homosexuals are not more likely than others to abuse children. People who have sex with the opposite sex using contraception are not more likely to abuse children. Celibates, it seems, at least religious celibates, are at least as likely to abuse children as other adults.

Child sexual abuse is not practiced by the vast majority of adults, ever. It has nothing to do with adult sexual practices.

The difficulty of gaining acceptance of the Catholic view of sexuality, especially in relation to contraception is not the difficulty portrayed in the article. The difficulty is that almost everyone who accepts the teaching does so on faith. It cannot be rationally explained to the extent that a non-believer could be persuaded. For many Catholics, faith is not enough. There needs to be a rational basis.

 

[stpurl]

You do seem to bring up ‘traditionalist dissent’ an awful lot.

May I suggest that you open up a nice separate thread for that? Since it actually wasn’t discussed in the article itself?

 

[Emeraldlady]

You do seem to bring up ‘traditionalist dissent’ an awful lot.

May I suggest that you open up a nice separate thread for that? Since it actually wasn’t discussed in the article itself?

You do seem to try and ‘shut me up’ an awful lot. May I suggest you read the article and see the focus on ‘dissent’ in undermining a papal encyclical.

 

[stpurl]

I’m not trying to shut you up at all; why would I suggest a separate thread where you could have all the discussion you would like if that were the case?

Just. . .wow. Sayonara.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Believe it or not it was even more acceptable in the early Church among gentiles. Remember ancient Rome had no issue at all with homosexual behavior

Not accepted by the Church, just by certain Church members.

 

[alphonsus1]

Unnatural acts are sex acts, use of the generative faculty, other than sexual intercourse. Perfect sodomy is any copulation that involves a joining together of bodies in a manner of intercourse with a person of the same sex. Imperfect sodomy occurs with the opposite sex. It is a subset of all heterosexual unnatural acts. Imperfect sodomy definitely involves a joining together of bodies in a manner of intercourse, but it is debated which acts that fit this description are indeed imperfect sodomy. It must be reiterated: all of these immoral acts are “unnatural acts.”

 

[alphonsus1]

I disagree that there is “no rational basis” for the Church’s teachings against direct sterilization.

1. All acts are ordered towards some proximate end in the moral object of the act.
2. Every act’s proximate end is either (A) in conformity or (B) not in conformity with some human good.
3. Any act that is not in conformity, or deprived of, a human good in its moral object is intrinsically evil.
4. Direct sterilization, whether permanent or temporary, is any act with sole proximate end impeding the procreative functioning of the generative faculty for which that generative faculty itself is capable of procreation.
5. Since direct sterilization’s inherent, proximate end is “impeding the procreative functioning of the generative faculty,” and this is also its sole proximate end, it therefore must be ordered towards this end. This is because all acts have an ordering towards some proximate end from which we deduce the act’s conformity with a human good. And if there’s only one proximate end, then there’s only one end for that act to possibly be ordered towards.
6. Finally, since actively working against the generative faculty, and using our will to do this, goes against the good of procreation (and this is the sole proximate end), it is intrinsically evil.
7. This is the “rational basis.” The fact that the premises of the argument do not personally resonate with you do not impact its logical consistency.

 

[IQ170]

Unnatural acts are sex acts, use of the generative faculty, other than sexual intercourse. Perfect sodomy is any copulation that involves a joining together of bodies in a manner of intercourse with a person of the same sex. Imperfect sodomy occurs with the opposite sex. It is a subset of all heterosexual unnatural acts. Imperfect sodomy definitely involves a joining together of bodies in a manner of intercourse, but it is debated which acts that fit this description are indeed imperfect sodomy. It must be reiterated: all of these immoral acts are “unnatural acts.”

Thanks. So, according to this definition animals also practice “sodomy”. Good to know. Poor animals have no idea… they just practice everything according to their natural impulses.

 

[alphonsus1]

No, “acts” obviously meant “human acts” and are “exercises of the will.” Animals, or humans before they reach the age of reason, or humans with severe mental disorders, may be incapable of performing “acts” because they do not have sufficient reason to deliberately and knowingly make choices. This is why we do not have criminal courts for “animal” or “two year old” crimes.

 

[IQ170]

No, “acts” obviously meant “human acts” and are “exercises of the will.” Animals, or humans before they reach the age of reason, or humans with severe mental disorders, may be incapable of performing “acts” because they do not have sufficient reason to deliberately and knowingly make choices. This is why we do not have criminal courts for “animal” or “two year old” crimes.

Well, you did not say that. And there is nothing “obvious” about it. But, be as it may, the animals behave in a fully natural manner. As such what you call “sodomy” is a natural behavior, and there is nothing unnatural about them. Moreover, these acts are not criminal either, especially since the “criminality” of an act is an artificial concoction. Maybe you want to re-think your definition.

 

[JimG]

From the article:

“Imagine asking a theist this question: “Who put together in the human sexual act what we commonly call ‘making love’ and ‘making babies’?” The theist has to reply, “God”. Next question: “What is contraception except the deliberate effort to take apart what God Himself has put together in this one act?” There’s only one reply: “That’s precisely what contraception is all about.” Last question: “If we accept the idea that we can take apart what God has put together in the human sexual act, doesn’t this open the door, logically, to the acceptance of taking apart anything else related to the human sexual act?” I am not aware of any way to not apply that decision-making principle to any other imaginable sexual behavior. This obviously applies to the acceptance of sodomy, but it would also apply to the whole list of mutual-consent behaviors condemned in Sacred Scripture. In alphabetical sequence: adultery, bestiality, contraception, fornication, incest, prostitution, and sodomy.”

One might put it another way, once you dislodge and remove the keystone, the entire edifice of sexual morality collapses. This is what has happened, just as Pope Paul VI predicted.

 

[alphonsus1]

No, “natural” does not mean “existing in nature” or “what animals do.” This is a naturalistic falacy. If this were true, then since cannibalism exists in some species of animals, it must be “natural” and moral. This reasoning is erroneous. Also, I am using Catholic’s definition of “natural,” which refers to the moral object of the act and it’s inherent ordering.

Second, not all acts that are unnatural deserve “penalty X” (they do not need to be “criminal” in the legal sense). This is because criminal penalties can differ from one time to another. Which penalties should be applied involve argumentation deriving from the positive and negative consequences of choosing one penalty over another penalty. These arguments could be things like deterring crime, differing detention schemes from one society to another (or one time in history to another time in history for that matter), criminal court costs, etc. It is certain that the sin of Sodom, on the moral level, is a Crime that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance.

Finally, morality is not constructed in any “artificial” sense. Morality is just as constructed as the law of gravity or the axioms of mathematics are constructed. Math existed and described the world before humans even evolved to construct anything. Likewise, the moral law exists and is a binding Truth in the same way.

 

[Emeraldlady]

alphonsus1:

No, “acts” obviously meant “human acts” and are “exercises of the will.” Animals, or humans before they reach the age of reason, or humans with severe mental disorders, may be incapable of performing “acts” because they do not have sufficient reason to deliberately and knowingly make choices. This is why we do not have criminal courts for “animal” or “two year old” crimes.

Well, you did not say that. And there is nothing “obvious” about it. But, be as it may, the animals behave in a fully natural manner. As such what you call “sodomy” is a natural behavior, and there is nothing unnatural about them. Moreover, these acts are not criminal either, especially since the “criminality” of an act is an artificial concoction. Maybe you want to re-think your definition.

Among animals sodomy serves as a male power act. Milder but akin to two male beasts fighting to the death for leadership of a group. It serves the ‘survival of the fittest’ theme which is abominable to human beings. In fact, sodomy was regarded as an ‘abomination’ by spiritual or transcendent cultures which from the Latin ab homine means “away from man” (thus “beastly”).

 

[Thorolfr]

It is certain that the sin of Sodom, on the moral level, is a Crime that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance.

I see that you’ve described it as a “Crime that Cries out to Heaven for Vengeance” instead of a “Sin that Cries out to Heaven for Vengeance”. So, do you think that this “crime” should be treated like other crimes with some sort of punishment?

 

[FiveLinden]

• All acts are ordered towards some proximate end in the moral object of the act.
  …
• This is the “rational basis.” The fact that the premises of the argument do not personally resonate with you do not impact its logical consistency.

Well, I agree that if I were to accept your first statement some of the rest might follow, even though the language falls far short of any sort of exactness. But I don’t. First of all, I don’t accept that ‘all acts are ordered’. You probably mean ‘purposeful, deliberate acts’ but I still don’t see any reason to accept that (and I’m only up to the first clause in your sentence!). Then I don’t accept that they are ‘all ordered to some proximate end’. People can do things for multiple ends, or seeking different ends at different times, or for no intended end at all. You then talk about ‘the moral object of the act’ without defining what you mean by moral (although it seems very circular to me) and asserting the existence of something called an ‘object of the act’ which seems to differ in your mind to ‘the proximate end’. With all respect to your courteous and careful response to my post, I simply don’t see that this is a rational premise in any sense. It is an assertion based on faith.

 

[Divine3]

This article was worth all the time it took, even if it meant losing extra time to do something else.

 

[Divine3]

What a great, informative and helpful article. Thank you very much. Reading and study takes discipline. Ignorance is never blissful when it comes to morality and what God asks us to live regarding his commandments.