Unnatural methods can be good!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epsicron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Epsicron

Guest
Here’s a question I’ve never succeeded in figuring out the answer to.

I’ve heard it often said by Catholic experts that homosexual acts are wrong because they are unnatural or go against God’s design. However, if going against God’s design always resulted in some objectively sinful act then it would be wrong to ride a bicycle; for God designed our bodies to walk.

So, it seems to me the following must be true:
  1. There are some designs we are permitted to circumvent
  2. There are some designs we are not permitted to circumvent
Now, if I am still standing on a firm line of reason, here is my question. Is there a general criteria which can be used in determining whether an act falls into the first or second of the two categories listed above?
 
Yeah, God designed us for heaven, we ruined that, and by your theory then we couldn’t ride horses, sail on boats or anything else but walk, eat, sleep and make babies. Did God design us to work on computers or build bridges, drive cars or do brain surgery?

When it comes down to it homosexual acts are wrong and God tells us they are, that’s it. Sometimes it’s good the think like a Marine and just accept “because God says so” as your reason.
 
So you’re saying it’s not wrong, in itself, to go against God’s design? The real reason homosexuality is wrong is simply because God says so?
 
The basis of all sin is the pride to think that we can place our own reason and will above the reason and will of God.

Same sex relations are a sin for the same reason anything else is a sin: it offends God. That’s reason enough.
 
Riding a bike doesn’t frustrate the natural end of walking. It actually enhances the purpose of locomotion that is natural to our type of animal.

Natural in this case isn’t about “existing in nature”, it refers to our natural ends. And we only really encounter perversions of those ends when we intentionally frustrate those ends of our being, and particularly for our ends as whole beings. Restoring or enhancing normal functions isn’t “unnatural.”
 
Here’s a question I’ve never succeeded in figuring out the answer to.

I’ve heard it often said by Catholic experts that homosexual acts are wrong because they are unnatural or go against God’s design. However, if going against God’s design always resulted in some objectively sinful act then it would be wrong to ride a bicycle; for God designed our bodies to walk.

So, it seems to me the following must be true:
  1. There are some designs we are permitted to circumvent
  2. There are some designs we are not permitted to circumvent
Now, if I am still standing on a firm line of reason, here is my question. Is there a general criteria which can be used in determining whether an act falls into the first or second of the two categories listed above?
They’re not wrong just because they’re unnatural or because “God says so”.

The core reason of why they’re wrong is because they are sexual acts that are not ordered toward the proper end of what the sexual act is designed for. A car/computer/machine is designed to help human beings achieve a particular goal. This could be something good or bad. You can use a car to help you get to work each day. Or you could use it to help you commit sin. Cars are morally neutral. We aren’t necessarily circumventing or abusing God’s design in using a car.

However, when it comes to the sexual act, it is evident that it is ordered toward procreation and the unity of the married couple. It is also the case that the sacredness of this act places it above something like, eating, for example. In the sexual act we become co-creators with God and reflect the reality of the Holy Trinity. Homosexual acts can neither be truly unitive or procreative. Neither can they be ordered to the good of the other. They essentially consist of mutual masturbation.
 
Homosexual acts are as natural to humans as they are to our closest relatives, the bonobos.
This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by “natural.” There are lots of behaviors by animals “in nature,” including apes, that I hope you would agree would be abhorrent for humans to do.

As Adam said, “natural” here refers to the innate purpose or design, or “nature” of a thing. It’s a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.
 
This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by “natural.” There are lots of behaviors by animals “in nature,” including apes, that I hope you would agree would be abhorrent for humans to do.

As Adam said, “natural” here refers to the innate purpose or design, or “nature” of a thing. It’s a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.
Tsuzuki is not interested in debate. He or she is simply anti Catholic. Read his/her posts in other threads.
 
Homosexual acts are as natural to humans as they are to our closest relatives, the bonobos.
Animals sometimes eat their babies and their feces.

Are we now going to follow that sort of model?
 
Tsuzuki is not interested in debate. He or she is simply anti Catholic. Read his/her posts in other threads.
Thanks for the heads up! 👍 Hopefully I will at least provide some food for thought for others who read the thread.
 
I’m not anti-Catholic, but I am pro-LGBT, and science is on my side.
Nobody here knows exactly what you mean by “pro-LGBT”. The last several posts, as pensmama87 noted, are breaking down because of misunderstandings involving semantics and the articulation, or lack, thereof.

Be a little clearer about what you mean. For example, you said, “science is on my side”. Science does not take sides.
 
This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by “natural.” There are lots of behaviors by animals “in nature,” including apes, that I hope you would agree would be abhorrent for humans to do.

As Adam said, “natural” here refers to the innate purpose or design, or “nature” of a thing. It’s a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.
That’s true. We tend not to be cannibalistic, and killing romantic rivals is generally frowned upon among homo sapiens.
 
I’ve heard it often said by Catholic experts that homosexual acts are wrong because they are unnatural or go against God’s design. However, if going against God’s design always resulted in some objectively sinful act then it would be wrong to ride a bicycle; for God designed our bodies to walk.
To understand what we mean by unnatural in the moral sense, we need to understand what the aim of morality is: we need to discuss the nature of true human happiness/flourishing.

Our first conceptions of human happiness are things like pleasure, freedom from depression, health, freedom, and getting what we want.

But after a little experience and reflection, we come to find that simply doing whatever we want with as little restraints as possible doesn’t make us truly happy.

Within our interior life, we end up unable to resist our inclinations, we find our varies emotions and will are often in conflict with each other, we lose the motivation, the energy, to partake in the more noble things in life, and we just end up feeling unsatisfied and unfulfilled.

In our exterior life, we become more distant from people: we begin to see them merely as a means to an end, and instrument of our desire.

This is not because happiness isn’t found in a interior life that is free, whole, and fulfilled, because happiness truly is freely doing whatever we want, as a whole, being fulfilled in the actions. Our initial idea is correct!

However, the problem is is that our emotions, our passions, that thing that St. Paul calls “the flesh,” are normally disordered, they work against our will and reason, the “spirit,” and each other, they enslave us, make it difficult to control them, and they are not aimed towards their proper objects, in the correct degrees of “energy,” for the circumstances. In other words, they are inclined towards sin.

And so, human flourishing is found in self-mastery. To be a master of one’s own self, one must integrate all aspects of himself into one whole will, without conflict, working together as one direction and one energy, take control of the inclinations rather than letting them control you, and aim our emotional inclinations towards their proper object, in fitting degrees for the situation. Self-mastery is achieved through kinds of habit that we have traditionally called virtues.

Through virtue, what our emotions perceive to be good will then through the cultivation of the virtues be synthesized with what is actually good for us, and so we can freely and as a complete person pursue what will actually fulfill our desires, their proper objects, instead of seeking improper objects to fulfil the tendency, which at best give a short satisfaction.

It is also important to note that our will doesn’t simply will our emotions, rather, our emotions are ordered in such a way by good habits, virtues, which we control directly though our will. The will is like the couch, and the passions like the hockey team: the couch doesn’t play for them, but trains the players so that they can play correctly by themselves for the most part.
 
But, where does nature play in all this though? Well, our nature as human beings determines what inclinations we should have, and what the proper objects of these inclinations, their end or purpose, the full actualization of their potential, their completion, actual are.

So, for example, we notice that we have an inclination called hunger. We also figure out quickly that the end, propose, or proper object of the inclination, as determined by our nature, is a certain amount (and kind) of tofood. It is natural for us to want to have food, as that is the end, the object, of our nutritional facility. A habit of too much or too little food causes us to loose control over our appetite and our ability to say “no” to it, tends to make our appetite for food overshadow other desires and even conflict with them and our will, and ultimately leaves us unfulfilled and unsatisfied. This is called the vices of intemperance and gluttony.

Now, on the other hand, with the proper object of the inclination dicerned, it becomes clear what an improper or unnatural object to eat is. Dirt for example: sure, it might satisfy my hunger for a short time, but it doesn’t fullfil our desire for food, it doesn’t actually actualize any real potential in our nutrient abilities. Nothing is finished, completed, fulfilled, and so eventually, especially over time, we are left more and more unsatisfied.

The virtue of temperance is a habit in which our appetite’s inclinations are reaimed towards their proper objects in fitting amounts as determined by our nature/the nature of the passions, while striking a balance between it and our will and other passions and maintaining control over our eating habits rather than they controlling us, so that our desire may, given the right circumstances, obtain that object which fulfills them.

And so, what is unnatural according to human nature is an object of our passions that is against the true fulfillment, completion, actualization, of our inclinations and abilities, especially objects that are, by their very nature, against the appetite’s fulfillment and the equilibrium and freedom within our inner life.

Homosexual acts are unnatural and therefore wrong because they act against what experience and reflection determine what the proper object of eros is: the procreation and raising of children from the unity with the beloved. This is what fulfills and completes erotic love: this is what actualizes its full potential.

As you can see, the Christian and Thomist idea on true human flourishing isn’t merely some sort of arbitrary, abstract code, but rather deeply rooted in real human experience, especially monastic experience, as well as reflection and contemplation on human nature. It’s almost scientific, since much of ethics is figuring out to what degree should a rein in our passions, when should we let the “run wild,” etc., and the monostary is the lab in which these “experiments” are run.

And when we are masters of ourselves, we are free to, with our whole being under our control and our passions habitually aimed to their natural object, do what St. Augustine teaches, we can simple “love and do what we will.” We can begin to see people as things we should devote our will and energy, which we naturally devote to ourselves, towards. We can freely and completely give ourselves to God, who is ultimately the fulfillment of every desire we have. We enter in the earthly paradise again, and live as they did before they fell. Or, as Dante inspirationally describes the end of the moral life, in Virgil, the symbol of the possibilities of human reason and art, as he and Dante reach the garden of Eden:

When all the staircase lay beneath us and
we’d reached the highest step, then Virgil set
his eyes insistently on me and said:

'My son, you’ve seen the temporary fire
and the eternal fire; you have reached
the place past which my powers cannot see.

I’ve brought you here through intellect and art;
from now on, let your pleasure be your guide;
you’re past the steep and past the narrow paths.

Look at the sun that shines upon your brow;
look at the grasses, flowers, and the shrubs
born here, spontaneously, of the earth.

Among them, you can rest or walk until
the coming of the glad and lovely eyes—
those eyes that, weeping, sent me to your side.

Await no further word or sign from me:
your will is free, erect, and whole—to act
against that will would be to err: therefore

I crown and miter you over yourself.’”

Christi pax.
 
Sorry if I word things badly here: I’m a little tired, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask them! 😃

Christi pax.
 
Here’s a question I’ve never succeeded in figuring out the answer to.

I’ve heard it often said by Catholic experts that homosexual acts are wrong because they are unnatural or go against God’s design. However, if going against God’s design always resulted in some objectively sinful act then it would be wrong to ride a bicycle; for God designed our bodies to walk…
I wonder who these “Catholic experts” are?

Your premise is not too solid. Our legs and bodies are capable of a wide range of movements. Walking, Running, Swimming for example. Building & riding a bike too. I can find no contradiction with our good nature in a decision to do any of these things. I can see no reason to believe God “has in mind” that we only walk - can you?

Now consider two men engaging in a sexual relationship. Two men exchanging their semen with each other. Does that act make any sense - in light of our nature - at all?
 
What is your opinion on dancing without traveling any significant distance? I know there are some people who consider it sinful. It seems to me like the locomotive equivalent of non-procreative sex.
Dancing to enjoy company of others, music and song, exercise… I don’t see a problem because these things do not contradict our nature.
 
And neither does homosexual activity.
That’s an assertion without a basis.

What purposes do our gametes serve? What do we have them? Why might we be capable of transferring them to another? Does this suggest anything to you about our real nature as opposed to particular desires of particular persons?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top