What Exactly Is Sinful About Homosexuality?

[trickster]

Before jumping to conclusion on my question and before getting into “because the Bible tells me so” arguement, or “its always been a sin according to the teaching of the church” arguement. I want people to focus on a) what is sin? b) how does homosexuality meet those definitions of sin and c) how disordered is homosexuality?

In Catholic circles, I think we always try to walk that fine line between “homosexuality as a sin” and the “dignity of the human person” and we try to read these two paradigms in context of each other…we “love the sinner but hate the sin” or “we try to understand moral questions on how to relate to gay people within the context of Jesus’ stronger message of love:”

What I want to ask is “what exactly is sinful about homosexuality”? I ask you to stay away from the classical arguements on the side of homophobia or “its a sin” and you will rot in hell arguements…what is in the nature of homosexuality that separates us from God?

What is the full teaching of the church…not the positioning of right versus left on this issue?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Before we get deep into discussion, it’s important to define exactly what we mean by homosexuality. The Church’s definition (which you can find in the Catechism) is somewhat confusing to me because it defines it as relations between those of the same sex who experience a predominant sexual attraction between those of the same sex, but then in the same breath and in other documents, it refers to “homosexual persons”. An act is an entirely different thing than a characteristic of a person. Implying that homosexual persons can be pastorally cared for or even sacramentally participate in the life of the Church implies that homosexual persons can be chaste or homosexual persons can be standing on a float of your local pride parade. If we don’t hanker down and say exactly what we (for purposes of this discussion) say homosexuality is, we’re just going to end up talking past each other. That’s why, to make this simple, I’m just going to propose we say that homosexuality is acting on the condition of SSA.

To answer your question, it’s sinful because it’s an unnatural and depraved action that is rooted in a disordered inclination.

What do I mean by “disordered inclination”?

In order to understand what “disordered” means, we should probably take a look at the paradigm of something that is ordered.

For something to be ordered, it has to be ordained by God for a good. Sex is ordered by God for the good of a husband and wife becoming one flesh AND for the good of procreation.

Homosexuality is disordered because it takes an act that would otherwise be a good thing (provided that it’s within marriage) and changes the end of said act to being different than its ordered end (unity of husband and wife and procreation).

Because it takes God’s ordained plan and undermines it, it is objectively evil and is a sin.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…

What is the full teaching of the church…not the positioning of right versus left on this issue?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

I’m not sure if we could consider this the **full **teaching of the Church , but it’s definitely a significant chunk of it. It comes from a “sticky” header posted in Apologetics which can be verified , here .
CAF Moderator (Ret.):

Catechism of the Catholic Church::

**1935 **

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2347 The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality. Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authored by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:

…Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.
…
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

The document then proceeds to give reasons supporting the Catholic position.

Please review the Church’s position prior to posting on the matter.

God Bless,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[trickster]

Hello Need Improvement…by the way is a “sticker” a warning or just a note from another part of Catholic Answers…

What I am looking for is the Catholic teaching and/or definition on “sin” … we were taught that there are less serious sins and grave or more serious sins…and that sins send us to hell unless we are baptized and wil then spend time in purgatory in preparation for our full existence in heaven…

“Sin” keeps us from God is what we used to be taught…when I am not sure if that is true if we are only going to purgatory…if we are going to hell for “being gay” as the rhetoric out there suggests…then there must be something in homosexuality that is a sin and will keep people seperate from God…

How would you read the dynamics on this?

Bruce Ferguson

 

[trickster]

PART ONE
Hello Corpus Christi

Before we get deep into discussion, it’s important to define exactly what we mean by homosexuality. The Church’s definition (which you can find in the Catechism) is somewhat confusing to me because it defines it as relations between those of the same sex who experience a predominant sexual attraction between those of the same sex, but then in the same breath and in other documents, it refers to “homosexual persons”.

An act is an entirely different thing than a characteristic of a person. Implying that homosexual persons can be pastorally cared for or even sacramentally participate in the life of the Church implies that homosexual persons can be chaste or homosexual persons can be standing on a float of your local pride parade. If we don’t hanker down and say exactly what we (for purposes of this discussion) say homosexuality is, we’re just going to end up talking past each other. That’s why, to make this simple, I’m just going to propose we say that homosexuality is acting on the condition of SSA. .

SSA I assume means “same sex attraction”, right…

To answer your question, it’s sinful because it’s an unnatural and depraved action that is rooted in a disordered inclination.

The term “unnatural” is never challenged by Catholic apologetics, yet we have just made a universal judgement of a “characteristic” and an “act”. Where do the early church writers begin to develop the notion of “natural” versus “unnatural” action…When was the word “depraved” introduced? What is the pre-context in terms of the Hebrew Bible? How has scriptures been interpreted and misinterpreted through the centuries with respect to proper biblical scholarship on the word used that later came to be uses as scriptural quotes to support the “unnatural and depraved action” words you use - (from the catechism…is that where you were using them from?)

 

[trickster]

PART 2
Hello CorpusChristi

What do I mean by “disordered inclination”? In order to understand what “disordered” means, we should probably take a look at the paradigm of something that is ordered. For something to be ordered, it has to be ordained by God for a good. Sex is ordered by God for the good of a husband and wife becoming one flesh AND for the good of procreation. .

True and I agree with you that this is Catholic teaching. However, the words “disordered” when used in the context of “homosexuality” are more dark words than when they are applied to other “disordered” inclinations such as greed, jealousy, theft, etc. There is a deeper level of accusation thrown by the word “disordered” when in the context of talking about homosexuality than say for example our inclination to obsess or addiction to power, money, etc. The same questions around “disorder” and "order’ what is the development of that language…and note that these words in the catechism I don’t think (not entirely certain) refer to any lost time or separation from God…yet in the rhetoric of disordered, depraved, etc., one assumes that Catholics think that gays will go to hell when that is not the teaching of our church at all…

Homosexuality is disordered because it takes an act that would otherwise be a good thing (provided that it’s within marriage) and changes the end of said act to being different than its ordered end (unity of husband and wife and procreation). .

So does allowing people who are married but no longer able to produce children to have sex…they don’t have sex to try and make children…so the arguement that sex is for the production of children within the framework of marriage is true…but limited…

Sex is also for pleasure, it is difficult to deny that your body just feels good during sex…and that mutual pleasure between same sex people is a very human thing…it is indeed human sexuality…so what is so disordered about a biological and socio-psychological reality?

Again, what is the historical development of this teaching…St. Paul who talked in Romans about homosexuality was talking about it in terms of certain greek practices, practices that cannot be equivalent to today’s gay movement…yet our church teaches us not to limit scripture by imposing current conditions (homosexuality as practiced today) with the way the words, scriptures etc., were used to address a similar issue from 2000 years ago in another part of the world and in a different culture.

So you see, it is important for the church to define how the church’s teaching evolved. to recognize that there may have been mistakes in the developmetn of this teaching and certainly many theologians have put those questions forward…and most notably proponents of queer theology…

Because it takes God’s ordained plan and undermines it, it is objectively evil and is a sin.

That statement is a “because the Bible tells me so” statement…How is it objectively evil? and how is it a sin…your arguement start from assumptions as to the validity of using words like 'unnatural" and not understanding the development of the church’s wording around ordered and disordered…and the danger of misunderstanding those words have with respect to violence against homosexual people and so forth…

So, we need to challeng ourselves with our understanding fo the basic concepts…we say that homosexuality is disordered…why…because God has ordered the world in a certain way…how many times has that interpration changed throughout the years…we use the words "depraved’…says who and in comparison to what?

Thanks for your thoughts…and thank you for helping me to clarify my thinking a bit more on this subject…that is what I find so helpful about debate …that is the process of clarifying what we are trying to express, being comfrotable with the fact that we don’t know everything and not all things have to be explained in nice little pre-packaged boxess!

or books

Cheerz
Bruce Ferguson

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

PART ONE
Hello Corpus Christi

The term “unnatural” is never challenged by Catholic apologetics, yet we have just made a universal judgement of a “characteristic” and an “act”. Where do the early church writers begin to develop the notion of “natural” versus “unnatural” action…When was the word “depraved” introduced? What is the pre-context in terms of the Hebrew Bible? How has scriptures been interpreted and misinterpreted through the centuries with respect to proper biblical scholarship on the word used that later came to be uses as scriptural quotes to support the “unnatural and depraved action” words you use - (from the catechism…is that where you were using them from?)

We understand (with respect to sexuality) that because God created man male and female, that he intended for a man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that God’s first command to the first man and woman was to be fruitful and multiply, that the natural context for sex was within a union between man and woman that was blessed by God and that anything that deviates from that is unnatural. It’s written in our very biology that this is how society should function. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve sinned and from that resulted the fall. Because of this fall of nature, we have SSA (something that I live with daily). While this unfortunate effect of the fall exists in our world and has been characterized different ways by many people to mean something that it is not (and those on either side of the fence have done this to opposing ends), those with SSA are called to chastity like everyone else is. We just bear the cross of not being able to marry or have relationships that resemble marriage, which can be a great source of loneliness.

As for the answer to your other questions (scriptural translations/interpretations), I’m no scholar, but I’m sure a staff apologist or someone else who is more apt than I can assist you. I’m only stating that which I know. I stand on my faith, my knowledge, and my reason. The words I used are not necessarily quoting anything, but they are my own used in conjunction with my understanding of Church teaching.

 

[albarker1]

I can tell you a big old list of sin and explain why God said it what it does causes and effects on earth as flesh and in eternity for soul but the bottomline is this Because HE SaID So …stop being disobedient prideful independents and submit in holy fear and reverence to the holy word and spirit of the one true creator I promise disagreement will kill us and not believing won’t change it and usually blatent obedience better than sacrifice and hardest to do is best way to find the answer from god to your soul just exactly how you’ll be able to understand it. Say I confess homosexuality is an abomination and sin to you god and I ask forgiveness by the blood and in the name of Jesus you are quick and faithful to forgive my sin and cleanse be from all unrighteousness if I confess and while I don’t get it I did confess it and I’m clean right and forgiven now please show me that I may obtain godly wisdom knowledge and understanding according to your word dear lord

 

[trickster]

I can tell you a big old list of sin and explain why God said it what it does causes and effects on earth as flesh and in eternity for soul but the bottomline is this Because HE SaID So …stop being disobedient prideful independents and submit in holy fear and reverence to the holy word and spirit of the one true creator I promise disagreement will kill us and not believing won’t change it and usually blatent obedience better than sacrifice and hardest to do is best way to find the answer from god to your soul just exactly how you’ll be able to understand it. Say I confess homosexuality is an abomination and sin to you god and I ask forgiveness by the blood and in the name of Jesus you are quick and faithful to forgive my sin and cleanse be from all unrighteousness if I confess and while I don’t get it I did confess it and I’m clean right and forgiven now please show me that I may obtain godly wisdom knowledge and understanding according to your word dear lord

OK Al Barker It is clear where you stand on this…and you have my respect just not my agreement…

Cheerz

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

We understand (with respect to sexuality) that because God created man male and female, that he intended for a man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that God’s first command to the first man and woman was to be fruitful and multiply, that the natural context for sex was within a union between man and woman that was blessed by God and that anything that deviates from that is unnatural. It’s written in our very biology that this is how society should function. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve sinned and from that resulted the fall. Because of this fall of nature, we have SSA (something that I live with daily). While this unfortunate effect of the fall exists in our world and has been characterized different ways by many people to mean something that it is not (and those on either side of the fence have done this to opposing ends), those with SSA are called to chastity like everyone else is. We just bear the cross of not being able to marry or have relationships that resemble marriage, which can be a great source of loneliness.

As for the answer to your other questions (scriptural translations/interpretations), I’m no scholar, but I’m sure a staff apologist or someone else who is more apt than I can assist you. I’m only stating that which I know. I stand on my faith, my knowledge, and my reason. The words I used are not necessarily quoting anything, but they are my own used in conjunction with my understanding of Church teaching.

Hi Corpus Christi…thanks for the posting…let me get back to you on this…I enjoy these discussions immensly and forget about time…right now it is 1 am in British Columbia and I better get to friggen bed! Or I will be a very sorrowful Catholic at work tommorrow:

Cheerz Brother

Bruce Ferguson

 

[albarker1]

I thank you for respect ditto and this is not a stand against a particular sin or abominations this stand is on the word of god…he said it that settles it I agree with it believe it and abide deeply in his word but the matter is settled agree or disagreed doesn’t matter god never changes Jesus Christ is same yesterday today and forever only relativism about sin is how god sees it and we submit according to that perspective without compromise to relate to him. We can’t mold God into our image we have to let god mold us into his image…not fun easy or done overnight but worth it and worthy is he…trust belief faith devotion took 31 yrs and a lot of religion before I had a loving relationship with my heavenly father but I’ve arrived in agreement and diligently seek wisdom and understanding and he is who he says he is and rewards for the hunt

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Because I have no access to a computer, am using a phone (which is a pain in the neck as it is), and I know including your text in my reply will amount to more than 6000 characters, I will reply to your post separately.

Concerning your first point, I actually agree with you. As someone who deals with SSA on a very personal level, it does seem that there is a lot of jargon attached to homosexuality that is not attached to other sins. It speaks to an underlying attitude that many will not admit to be there. I won’t deny that some do go a bit far in their speaking of “the truth” concerning homosexuality, even SSA as well.

As for your other points, as I said before, I am no scholar. I have been blessed with a knowledge, with the opportunity to be a living witness to the fact that SSA does not have to be a curse or a burden and that while it can be difficult at times (especially when I or SSA are misunderstood by well-intentioned, albeit ignorant people), God still loves and accepts me and calls me to holiness just the same as everyone else, and finally, with strong faith.

I’m humbled by your understanding. It really is true that all we believe was not handed to us in neat little packages. We take a lot for granted being 2000 or so years into the process of Christ bringing all things unto himself. Yes, our beliefs concerning many things did indeed develop. That does not detract from their truth because Christ told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them (and their successors) into all truth. It does leave much for the modern Catholic to understand, however. I’m sure that when people wake up tomorrow, you and I will have a lot more “interesting” things to respond to, but for now, I can only be dull and say “this is what I understand” and you’re a pretty smart guy.

God bless,

Rob

 

[albarker1]

But he doesn’t judge he saves he reserved judgement for another day and he loves us all and wants all men saved I make no judgement of others because I’m not justified by law I’m saved by unmerited grace I judge I get judged I don’t forgive I can’t be forgiven and if I don’t love the truth and fellow sinners I dont love god

 

[sw85]

Hi trickster,

The philosophical basis for Catholic moral teachings are pretty complicated. I’ve tried to explain them here but I don’t think I do them justice, since some people don’t seem to get it. You can read an earlier attempt here – the subject is specifically contraception but it applies to all sexual immorality as well.

The gist is that the goodness of a thing arises from its nature and the degree to which it exemplifies that nature, so that, for instance, a pen (which is made for writing) is “good” only to the extent that it writes well. Well, the human reproductive system is made for reproduction, and hence should be used always in a manner consistent with that end. This doesn’t require that conception result every time, only that the sexual act conform to the end of procreation.

Intentionally separating the sexual act from its natural end is the “disorder” – and when the disorder is embarked on with full consent and with knowledge of its sinfulness it becomes a “sin.”

Hope this helps.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Hello Need Improvement…by the way is a “sticker” a warning or just a note from another part of Catholic Answers…

What I am looking for is the Catholic teaching and/or definition on “sin” … we were taught that there are less serious sins and grave or more serious sins…and that sins send us to hell unless we are baptized and wil then spend time in purgatory in preparation for our full existence in heaven…

“Sin” keeps us from God is what we used to be taught…when I am not sure if that is true if we are only going to purgatory…if we are going to hell for “being gay” as the rhetoric out there suggests…then there must be something in homosexuality that is a sin and will keep people seperate from God…

How would you read the dynamics on this?

Bruce Ferguson

Hi trickster, it said “sticky” beside the listing - if you like “sticker”, I’m good with that, and always prone/open to correction…sounds right to me - more practical.

If you might allow me to point out, first of all that the “sticker” quotes critical parts of the CCC and the (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, and that if you follow that link on what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, you should get a little more of a solid exegesis on the subject.

If you’re interested in an even more complete Catholic view on the subject, you may want to consider reading the declaration on the subject by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975 , mentioned at the end of Father John Hardon’s definition of homosexuality.

BTW, I would just note that part of the way the original question is phrased is a little bit unclear (this subject is so volatile). I think this part

“what exactly is sinful about homosexuality”?

needs to be clarified, (or maybe that’s what you’re asking- that it be clarified … in any event) ; I would take Father Hardon’s approach to do it. He says 3 levels of homosexuality are to be distinguished :

• tendency,
• attraction,
• activity

… only activity is morally indefensible.
Father John Hardon:

HOMOSEXUALITY.
In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975

Good luck with the thread

 

[trickster]

Hi trickster, it said “sticky” beside the listing - if you like “sticker”, I’m good with that, and always prone/open to correction…sounds right to me - more practical.

If you might allow me to point out, first of all that the “sticker” quotes critical parts of the CCC and the (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, and that if you follow that link on what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, you should get a little more of a solid exegesis on the subject.

If you’re interested in an even more complete Catholic view on the subject, you may want to consider reading the declaration on the subject by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975 , mentioned at the end of Father John Hardon’s definition of homosexuality.

BTW, I would just note that part of the way the original question is phrased is a little bit unclear (this subject is so volatile). I think this part

needs to be clarified, (or maybe that’s what you’re asking- that it be clarified … in any event) ; I would take Father Hardon’s approach to do it. He says 3 levels of homosexuality are to be distinguished :

• tendency,
• attraction,
• activity

… only activity is morally indefensible.

Good luck with the thread

Awesome, thank you…yes I think I was focusing on acting as the other two the church says are neutral in the sense that they are beyond our control…whereas activity is a decision…

Bruce

 

[chrysostim83]

Start with the premise that pleasure should never be the rule of action, and that the greater the pleasure, the worse it becomes to accept it as the rule of action. A brief sketch of an argument for this permise might go as follows: humans are or ought to be rational, so their actions ought to be principled; but taking pleasure as the rule tends to make one’s actions unprincipled, and the greater the pleasure, the strong that tendency becomes; therefore, pleasure should not be taken as the rule of action.

Now the most usual way of taking pleasure as the rule of an action is performing the action for the sake of the pleasure it produces, that is, taking pleasure as the end of the action. A classic example of this is the case of a married couple sleeping together “for pleasure alone.” This has always been considered a serious sin in Catholic moral theology, and the most plausible reason for this is suggested by the premise outlined above. But there is another way of making pleasure the rule of action, and that is through the moral object of the action.

The moral object of an action is nothing but the natural effects of the action considered in the light of making the action apt for achieving the ends for which it is chosen. For instance, the natural effect of aiming a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger is the injury or death of the target, so the moral object of that action is inflicting harm or deliberately killing someone. But there are certain actions (such as same-sex sexual behaviors) that are apt for achieving the ends for which people people choose them only because of the pleasure which is their natural effect. For example, a same-sex couple might have sex to grow closer to each other, but the kind of closeness they desire can be achieved only through the sort of pleasure that is the natural effect of same-sex sexual behaviors (otherwise, the couple’s choice between sex and bowling would be arbitrary).

But then it is clear why same-sex sexual behaviors should never be chosen. As the natural effect of an action is the the first choice of the will and as the pleaure involved in these actions is great, these behaviors, along with masturbation and contracepted sexual acts, must recieve the strongest condemnation from the premise we started out with.

[Note: The argument above is experimental, but I thought I would put it out there, first to see what people think of it and second, because it is much more satisfying that vague arguments about what is natural or in what ways the sexes are complementary.]

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

PART 2
However, the words “disordered” when used in the context of “homosexuality” are more dark words than when they are applied to other “disordered” inclinations such as greed, jealousy, theft, etc. There is a deeper level of accusation thrown by the word “disordered” when in the context of talking about homosexuality than say for example our inclination to obsess or addiction to power, money, etc.

Amen, brother!

 

[Nelka]

Before jumping to conclusion on my question and before getting into “because the Bible tells me so” arguement, or “its always been a sin according to the teaching of the church” arguement. I want people to focus on a) what is sin? b) how does homosexuality meet those definitions of sin and c) how disordered is homosexuality?

In Catholic circles, I think we always try to walk that fine line between “homosexuality as a sin” and the “dignity of the human person” and we try to read these two paradigms in context of each other…we “love the sinner but hate the sin” or “we try to understand moral questions on how to relate to gay people within the context of Jesus’ stronger message of love:”

What I want to ask is “what exactly is sinful about homosexuality”? I ask you to stay away from the classical arguements on the side of homophobia or “its a sin” and you will rot in hell arguements…what is in the nature of homosexuality that separates us from God?

What is the full teaching of the church…not the positioning of right versus left on this issue?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

Sodomy is morally wrong!

Intercourse between married couples is for procreation, love and pleasure.

You cannot procreate through sodomy can you?

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Hey all,

Love the thread so far. An unusually civil and rational discussion on the topic.
I’d like to try to offer an answer to Trickster. I realize that there are a lot of points where the natural law doctrine really does seem to be problematic. My own opinion of it is that it’s something like Newtonian physics for the moral realm: it offers a pretty good approximation, and you can use it to get results that are basically true, and that are certainly useful, but that the reality is a lot more complicated.
My own reason for thinking that homosexuality is wrong is that it’s basically using the language of the body to say something that is untrue – there are indications towards this in the Church’s writings on sexuality throughout the latter half of this century, starting, as far as I know, with Humanae Vitae. The language of the body approach is the foundation for John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, and is much stronger, in my opinion, than natural law.
Okay, I’m going to get speculative here, but basically I think that the entire created order is fractular in its structure: that is to say, it is a nested series of self-similar patterns which are repeated on vastly different scales. The most obvious examples of this are the similarity between the structure of an atom, a solar system and a galaxy, and the similarity between the temporal structure of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Apocalypse and the structure of an individual human life (Birth-Loss of innocence-Redemption-Death) I would also note that Pagan systems observe a very similar set of mythic concerns in the way that they construe the progress of the seasons. These fractal formulae play themselves out from the highest to the lowest levels of reality, and the aesthetic coherence of the Created order seems to rely on the harmonious relationship of microcosm and macrocosm.
In terms of the meaning of human sexuality, it would seem that the formula which underlies it is the formula of the Trinity Himself: that is that there is a union of two into one from which there proceeds a third. In other words, when people have sex what they are doing is trying to become a little Trinity, they are manifesting the image and likeness of God in the language of the body. Sex is therefore basically an icon. Like any icon, it can be badly executed, it can fail to come off, it can be damaged or broken, but there is a total difference of intent between an artist who wishes to create the best icon that he possibly can, but whose efforts are imperfect, and an iconoclast or idolater, both of whom wish to change the purpose of the image so that it ceases to point beyond itself towards ultimate Truth. Forms of sexuality which either deliberately or necessarily preclude the possibility of a family being formed, that is in the sense of new life being donated to a new generation, an incarnation of the love of the couple into a truly new human person, are by their “nature” distortions of this Truth. As such, they have something of the same character as when a person lies to himself, deludes himself, in order to gain greater psychological comfort. Sex of this kind may produce pleasure in the short run, but because it doesn’t conform to the objective meaning of the body and its acts, it is ultimately harmful to the integrity of the person.
How is this a sin? Well, I would say that a sin, in essence, is an effacement of the image and likeness of God within the human person. Our fundamental human vocation is to manifest this image to one another and to the world. Sin, in modern discourse, has kind of come to mean “Hellfire, Burn, Bad, Bad, Bad,” but it’s actually just the word for an action which is not good for the person because it leads him away from, rather than towards, union with God. From this, I think that the sinfulness of same-sex sex follows as a fairly straightforward conclusion.