What is NATURAL in sexual desires as stated in the Catechism?

[cristininha]

Unintentionally sterile opposite sex married people still have acts that retain their relationship to life. Same sex people cannot not.

If by “acts that retain their relationship to life” you are referring to the “possible or factual formation of new life”, in vitro fertilization technology has more relationship to life than the sexual relationship of sterile opposite sex couples. I think you are trying to justify sterile opposite sex relationships only to wedge this issue against same sex relationships, with the sole purpose of denying the validity of the latter regarding marriage. This idea pertains to the same group of arguments requiring procreation or reproduction as requirements to be able to marry. No matter how much sterile opposite sex couples engage in sexual intercourse, they cannot produce any more or less life than gay couples. That’s a fact. If by definition couples entering marriage contracts are required or expected to produce offsprings only by means of sexual intercourse, neither sterile opposite sex nor same sex couples could comply.

 

[frankieschatz1]

We are instructed that we have inherited what Adam (will, power, assertion) and Eve (consciousness, love, receptivity) experienced: the knowledge of good and evil, so that is one meaning of natural. Before that knowledge they easily communed with God and did not perceive their nakedness (we read that in Genesis), the original natural state. As early church fathers have written, the most natural (ordered) and original state, that we would love to have again, is feeling God continuously. Our spouse can be a “help meet” balancing us more so we can perfect that perception, but that isn’t about procreation specifically but about unselfishness. Have you read or heard of the unconsummated marriage of Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary, the spiritual marriage called the Josephite Marriage? It demonstrates the perfect love of God and spouse.

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” - Genesis 2:18

Interesting points. Keep them coming.
Frankie

 

[frankieschatz1]

For the way some in the Church acted, not for any doctrine or teaching on morals.

I have read them, several times. None of those events make your point though. BTW, the apology does not mean those particular events were wrong. It proves Catholics can act wrongly.

I disagree. In the Early and Middle Ages the Church saw that it was morally good to go on the Crusades, torture in the Inquisition, put Jews and non-Christians into slums, etc. This is in its essence a moral way of teaching and thinking that by our understanding of morality is unacceptable today. The Church has grown in its’ understanding of our holy faith during the centuries, and has developed its morality along with its deepening understanding of our faith.

Fix,
Many Early and Middle Age moral teachings like the above, allowed for many Christians to treat some of their fellow human beings in horrendously ways to the end that they ‘be saved’ from eternal damnation. To say that we as a Church have not grown in our understanding of our faith and the morality that leads from it is not looking at history objectively at the very least, and a slap against historical Truth at the most.

Your inability to acknowledge that the Church has emphasized different morals at some times in Church history is only subjective. Look into the way our Church has subtly changed it moral teachings on Suicide, for instance, in our own day and age.

There was a wide spread Catholic moral premise that all Suicides were mortal sins so all suicide person where going to hell. They could not confess this mortal sin since the suicide prevented it so they ipso facto have damed themselves. They were buried outside the Catholic cemetery gates in many cases with not even one Mass said for them. This teaching on suicide only changed to its fuller extent today just after Vatican II, when the Church considered psychological and depression studies and scientific chemical studies of the human brain. Many suicide persons the church has concluded are just not thinking clearly enough because of the now known physical and mental problems. So we cannot state (or judge ) that one who commites suicide is absolutely not going to heaven.

If you ask any older Priest, especially the retired ones, they will tell you that this older way of dealing with suicide was taught to them in the Seminary. I know. I was in the seminary for three years until God called me to another profession.

Times change. Human hearts, minds and understandings change. Only God in his constant love does not. If the Church cannot error in faith and morals since God is leading us through his Holy Spirit with this constant love, it certainly has erred in teaching them in full and correctly to its people many, many times in the past. This is also what John Paul II meant in his apologizes. He didn’t just apologize for the atrocities committed in the Churches name but the failure for the Church to comdemn these things and to teach the Christian teachings must be firmly based upon love, as Jesus, himself, has stated that they must.

My compassion for the medieval Church and the Church of today is our inability to express the truth in love the fullest extent. Read the apologies more deeply, and you will see much of this truth (and love.)
Frankie

 

[fix]

If by “acts that retain their relationship to life” you are referring to the “possible or factual formation of new life”,

I am referring to the fact unaltered conjugal acts are life offerring even if subjectively sterile.

in vitro fertilization technology has more relationship to life than the sexual relationship of sterile opposite sex couples.

No, IVF replaces the marital act. Please do not confuse chance of conception with “open to life”.

I think you are trying to justify sterile opposite sex relationships only to wedge this issue against same sex relationships, with the sole purpose of denying the validity of the latter regarding marriage. This idea pertains to the same group of arguments requiring procreation or reproduction as requirements to be able to marry. No matter how much sterile opposite sex couples engage in sexual intercourse, they cannot produce any more or less life than gay couples. That’s a fact. If by definition couples entering marriage contracts are required or expected to produce offsprings only by means of sexual intercourse, neither sterile opposite sex nor same sex couples could comply.

Again, it is not simply a matter of how likely conception is or is not. The act itself is rightly ordered when not altered and engaged in through marriage. It is a theological and natural reality.

 

[fix]

I disagree. In the Early and Middle Ages the Church saw that it was morally good to go on the Crusades, torture in the Inquisition, put Jews and non-Christians into slums, etc. This is in its essence a moral way of teaching and thinking that by our understanding of morality is unacceptable today. The Church has grown in its’ understanding of our holy faith during the centuries, and has developed its morality along with its deepening understanding of our faith.

The crusades were just wars. Any excess was not Church teaching. Your other points also are not valid as Church teaching has not changed and is not incorrect. If you want a point by point refutation please start a new thread or search old ones as your charges have been refuted hundreds of times.

Fix,
Many Early and Middle Age moral teachings like the above, allowed for many Christians to treat some of their fellow human beings in horrendously ways to the end that they ‘be saved’ from eternal damnation. To say that we as a Church have not grown in our understanding of our faith and the morality that leads from it is not looking at history objectively at the very least, and a slap against historical Truth at the most.

Let us go to a new thread. Then you can present your evidence. Keeping in mind that all are sinners. That is no proof the magisterium taught error.

Your inability to acknowledge that the Church has emphasized different morals at some times in Church history is only subjective. Look into the way our Church has subtly changed it moral teachings on Suicide, for instance, in our own day and age.

You present the proof.

There was a wide spread Catholic moral premise that all Suicides were mortal sins so all suicide person where going to hell. They could not confess this mortal sin since the suicide prevented it so they ipso facto have damed themselves. They were buried outside the Catholic cemetery gates in many cases with not even one Mass said for them. This teaching on suicide only changed to its fuller extent today just after Vatican II, when the Church considered psychological and depression studies and scientific chemical studies of the human brain. Many suicide persons the church has concluded are just not thinking clearly enough because of the now known physical and mental problems. So we cannot state (or judge ) that one who commites suicide is absolutely not going to heaven.

Suicide is still an objective mortal sin. Pastoral practices can change, but the nature of the act is still the same. Please do not confuse intrinsically evil acts with other aspects of pastoral practice.

If you ask any older Priest, especially the retired ones, they will tell you that this older way of dealing with suicide was taught to them in the Seminary. I know. I was in the seminary for three years until God called me to another profession.

You need to be specific, in another thread. Not simply claim teaching has changed based on personal understanding.

Times change. Human hearts, minds and understandings change. Only God in his constant love does not. If the Church cannot error in faith and morals since God is leading us through his Holy Spirit with this constant love, it certainly has erred in teaching them in full and correctly to its people many, many times in the past. This is also what John Paul II meant in his apologizes. He didn’t just apologize for the atrocities committed in the Churches name but the failure for the Church to comdemn these things and to teach the Christian teachings must be firmly based upon love, as Jesus, himself, has stated that they must.

My compassion for the medieval Church and the Church of today is our inability to express the truth in love the fullest extent. Read the apologies more deeply, and you will see much of this truth (and love.)
Frankie

I am sorry but you present the usual anti Catholic apologies here. You claim the Church “erred” based on your understanding of Church teaching. It is a straw man type argument.

Instead of substituting your incorrect understanding of Church teaching for true Church teaching and then tearing it down you need to first state what the Church actually teaches and then try and refute it.

So far, you offer no proof.

 

[jfhh]

Why is sexual complementarity so important in a relationship between two people? Sexual complementarity is a very broad concept.

It is, but a male and a male cannot be complementary with respect to sex (gender) since they are both the exact same sex. They may be complementary in OTHER ways which may be laudable. In any friendship there will be authentic human complementarity that is not sexual in nature.

Sexual complementarity is found in a union of body and soul to become something beautiful together in that union. A gay couple may become something beautiful together and they may have a union of soul, but they do not have a union of body and soul in which something beautiful arises (not babies, but the relationship) in a sexual way (i.e. in a way which is based partially on the synergy between male and female as such – not other kinds of human synergy).

 

[MarkInOregon]

Dwyer;4520238:

In the New Testament It states two times in two different Gospels (Mat 7:1, Luke 6:37) that Jesus implores us not to judge lest we be judged. In other words stop condemning others or you might be condemned. But forgive and you shall be forgiven.

This reminds me of the story of the woman caught in adultry that was brought to Jesus. When no one would cast the first stone–he said something to the effect does no one condemn you–then neither do I. Now it seems like many people think the story ended there–but it did not. Jesus said GO AND SIN NO MORE.

In your example regarding stealing. Stealing is wrong we all no that–its not even a question. No there maybe mitigating circumstances–but that doesnt mean its not a sin–does that make any sense? Those mitigating circumstances might affect whether the sin is venial or mortal and whether we are culpable. But they don’t change the sinful nature of the act. So it is not wrong or cruel to tell people that it is wrong to steal.

I think it is a fine line we are to tread as Catholics to admonish the sinner and yet not judge him lest we also be condemned.
So therefore, I take your suggestions as admonishing others with prudence and charity. Yet I would add we should admonish with deep Love and concern, like a loving parent would his child. Any other lesser motive to admonish another is not Christ-like, and fewer people listen to you. Agree. Unfortunately we are often so bad at it even with our own children…

No matter how you say such a statement it will be taken as judging their actions and their salvation. Isnt that simply the problem with society today–you cant tell anyone that anything they do is wrong – without offending? How does one admonish in this society - which increasingly refuses to accept any behavior as wrong as long as the one doing the behavior believes it to be o.k.?

 

[Vico]

The title of this thread is “What is NATURAL in sexual desires as stated in the Catechism?”

We can probably say that what is in the Catechism is in accord with the Papal Encyclicals. In John Paul II - Theology of the Body, we read the meaning of natural is natural law:

“…this norm belongs to the natural law, that is to say, it is in accordance with reason as such.”

However mutual attraction and lust are to be distinguished, as lust is an intense inclination toward the object because of its particular sexual value, whereas mutual attraction is the complete.

“The Norm of Humanae Vitae Arises from the Natural Law and the Revealed Order” - General Audience, July 18, 1984:

1. Therefore, the Encyclical Humanae Vitae therefore contains the moral norm and its reason, or at least an examination of what constitutes the reason for the norm. Moreover, since in the norm the moral value is expressed in a binding way, it follows that acts in conformity with the norm are morally right, while acts contrary to it are intrinsically illicit. The author of the encyclical stresses that this norm belongs to the natural law, that is to say, it is in accordance with reason as such. The Church teaches this norm, although it is not formally (that is, literally) expressed in Sacred Scripture. It does this in the conviction that the interpretation of the precepts of natural law belongs to the competence of the Magisterium.
2. The norm of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae concerns all men, insofar as it is a norm of the natural law and is based on conformity with human reason (when, it is understood, human reason is seeking truth).

“Mutual Attraction Differs from Lust” - General Audience, September 17, 1980

… lust is a real part of the human heart. When compared with the original mutual attraction of masculinity and femininity, lust represents a reduction. In stating this, we have in mind an intentional reduction, almost a restriction or closing down of the horizon of mind and heart. It is one thing to be conscious that the value of sex is a part of all the rich storehouse of values with which the female appears to the man. It is another to “reduce” all the personal riches of femininity to that single value, that is, of sex, as a suitable object for the gratification of sexuality itself. The same reasoning can be valid concerning what masculinity is for the woman…

 

[Vico]

I left some words off the end of one sentence. It should have read:

However mutual attraction and lust are to be distinguished, as lust is an intense inclination toward the object because of its particular sexual value, whereas mutual attraction is the complete and unselfish attraction.

 

[rusty20]

From the OP:

““We just can’t put the natural laws of thermodynamics and physics in the same category as sexual attractions anymore. How can we defend our position that gay sex is immoral if our basic premise about natural sexual relations is wrong?””

Where is your proof that our basic premise is wrong? In fact, if we are to listen to your own argument and disregard conclusions based on false premises, the Catholic Church would say that because your premise here is false, then your conclusion is meaningless…

See what I did there?

 

[Dwyer]

But actions are not done in a vacuum. They are done by people. If you judge an action you are judging that person who has done the action. Therefore, you ARE talking about judging others. There is no way around this in judging others.

Frankieschatz:

If I follow your line of reasoning, essentially you are making the argument that under no circumstance whatsoever, can one human person tell another human person that an act or action they commit is a morally wrong.

Thus, if a person told me that they killed another person, I could not tell them that the murder they committed is a crime against God, i.e., a mortal sin.

According to you reasoning, to do so would be to telling them that 1) their murder of another human being is morally a bad action AND 2) a Judgement on their Eternal Salvation.

Well, I would have to absolutely disagree with your analysis.

I also think any professional Catholic Apologist would not agree with your interpretation of this famous Scripture passage.

Here’s an article about the Scripture passage on judging others and how Catholics interpret it; please, read it:

domusdei.org/2007/03/10/sean-hannity-the-heretic/

You are correct about admonishing sinners out of love : one admonishes the sinner in order to show love for their neighbor (and I don’t mean the next door neighbor; your neighbor is any fellow human being).

What I am trying to explain to you, Frankieschatz, is part of basic Catholic Catechisis.

I have read a lot about Catholicism, listened to a lot of Catholic Radio, and have watched a lot of EWTN.

I have been very interested in Catholic Moral Theology for the last seven years, and I have never heard anyone interpret that passage of Scripture as saying one must remain mute and say nothing if one knows that another person is doing something morally wrong.

Again, I’m telling you this is one of **the most **misinterpreted passages of the Bible.

Sin and bad acts are one thing; eternally damning someone to Hell is another.

Just because you tell someone something they have committed a mortal sin does not mean that you are judging their Eternal Salvation.

In fact, we human beings, acting by ourselves, do not know the Eternal Salvation of anyone.

The Saints have been solemnly declared in Heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church.

It would be wrong, if with a little trouble we could save a sinner from sin, did we not speak to save him; it would, moreover, be a loss of great grace for ourselves.

“He who causes a sinner to be brought back from his misguded way, will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:20).

My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, Doctor of Systematic Theology, published by My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, revised edition, 1958, page 191.

You even mentioned the Catholic priest who taught your class said that judgement is judging the Eternal Salvation of another.

Frankieschatz wrote:

Think again. This is a perfect example of judging someone’s salvation. You have said they are in mortal sin and to a Catholic this means you just said they are going to hell. Think of another example please.

Well, I was speaking about a hypothetical person, not a real person in particular. So, the someone was no one:

I wrote:

You can simply say the proverbial, “Well, you know if I knew someone who was in a homosexual relationship (or getting drunk, or whatever), I would tell that person they are if they engage in that type of behavior, it is morally wrong and they are in a state of mortal sin, etc,”.

I think it would depend on what an individual told you.

If a person said to me they fully understood the Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality, knew it was morally wrong, but committed a homosexual act with another (or purposely got drunk, or purposely lied, etc.), I think one could then properly tell that person they had committed a mortal sin and need to go to Confession.

Only God (the Trinity) knows the Eternal Salvation of one of his human creatures.

We, as human creatures of God, left to ourselves, do not.

 

[Dwyer]

I think it is important that people here properly understand this issue of judging acts or actions of others to be morally wrong.

Here’s a quote from the article I linked above from a Catholic website

domusdei.org/2007/03/10/sean-hannity-the-heretic/:

When cornered all Hannity could do was resort to the tired old, “stop-judging-me” bit. He was quick to pull out: “Judge not and you will not be judged.” from Luke chapter 6, verse 37. Sean would have done well to read these passages in context and maybe he wouldn’t have made himself a public fool. We know from Scripture that **when “Judge not and you will not be judged” is taught, it does not mean that we cannot criticize or ‘judge’ a persons’ actions and beliefs to be objectively wrong or even objectively sinful. In fact to charitably admonish someone for their sin is a spiritual work of mercy! **Sean definitely does not know his Faith and one can judge that with confidence.

Back to what the Bible means by judging. The Bible teaches that we cannot judge someone’s salvation. How do we know this? Take 1 Corinthians 4:5 for example: “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.” This is clearly speaking of judgment and salvation. We are not to judge the salvation of men, for this is the work of Christ.

Then there is 1 Cor 5:9-12 which instructs us that we are to judge those within the Church. The commands given here by St. Paul require that we judge the actions of others for he tells us not to keep company with the immoral or greedy. How do we know those that are sexually immoral, greedy, and all the rest unless we judge them to be so? Here are the passages in question:

“I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.”

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

We are instructed that we have inherited what Adam (will, power, assertion) and Eve (consciousness, love, receptivity) experienced: the knowledge of good and evil, so that is one meaning of natural. Before that knowledge they easily communed with God and did not perceive their nakedness (we read that in Genesis), the original natural state. As early church fathers have written, the most natural (ordered) and original state, that we would love to have again, is feeling God continuously. Our spouse can be a “help meet” balancing us more so we can perfect that perception, but that isn’t about procreation specifically but about unselfishness. Have you read or heard of the unconsummated marriage of Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary, the spiritual marriage called the Josephite Marriage? It demonstrates the perfect love of God and spouse.

Hi Vico,
An help meet…
actually, in correct modern spelling, a help mete.
Mete is the word embodied in the word meter.
A meter is used to measure.
So an help mete is a companion measured, or fitted to match.
To fulfill what is lacking in the singular.
To make a complemantary whole.
As our Lord said, what is joined is no longer two, but one.
This complementarity can be in a physical realm, or a spiritual realm.
In the spiritual realm, where physical matching is not a requirement, some of these complementarities can be seen, falsely as homosexual.
The relationship between John and Our Lord,
Between Cardinal Newman and Father Ambrose St John.

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” - Genesis 2:18

Just a thought.

 

[Vico]

Voco proTatiano, those are interesting comments about complementarity that you make.

“This complementarity can be in a physical realm, or a spiritual realm. In the spiritual realm, where physical matching is not a requirement, some of these complementarities can be seen, falsely as homosexual.”

I suppose that you mean complementarities as in similarity of idealogy, mental and emotional liking, and interests, rather than as “mutually supplying each other’s lack” (Merriam-Webster). It was Pope Bennedict XVI in his first encyclical explained about agape and eros, and the influence of both in marriage.

We can see from the Bible that in heaven there is no marriage. Mark 12:25 (RSV-CE):

“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

I understand that to mean the eros aspects of relationships are absent in heaven. But in matrimony there may be both.

You said: “So an help mete is a companion measured, or fitted to match.”

I had wondered if it was a bad idea for me to use the King James when I sent that quote, not generally being a Catholic reference, but it does capture the meaning of “mutually supplying each other’s lack” from the Hebrew.

In the French Jerusalem Bible (1998) the phrase “une aide qui lui soit assortie” is used and in NRSV “a helper as his partner.” is the translation for the Hebrew 'ezer kÿnegdo meaning:

('ezer) a helper equal to him, (kÿnegdo) according to the opposite of him.

 

[Detales]

For what it’s worth:

I saw a documentary on the Science Channel where they were doing some genetic work on fruit flies. They introduced a gene for white eyes to a new strain as a marker for another trait being tested. Lo and behold, ALL of the males in that group began vigorous and continuous mating activity with only other males. If anyoune is familiar with the term “daisy chain,” well, that’s all one could see happening in the habitat of those flies. Maybe there is more to the genetic argument than we thought till now?

 

[fix]

For what it’s worth:

I saw a documentary on the Science Channel where they were doing some genetic work on fruit flies. They introduced a gene for white eyes to a new strain as a marker for another trait being tested. Lo and behold, ALL of the males in that group began vigorous and continuous mating activity with only other males. If anyoune is familiar with the term “daisy chain,” well, that’s all one could see happening in the habitat of those flies. Maybe there is more to the genetic argument than we thought till now?

How does that make the action moral or correctly ordered?

 

[Detales]

Well, it seems to me that many folks on here are of the opinion that in order for something to be “natural” it has to be ideal. In other words, as I understand it, no deviations from a norm are seen as natural. In Nature, however, it seems that all sorts of deviations happen as a normal course of events. Some of these are useful, most are not, depending on the situation of the creature which experiences them, including Man as a race.

To me that means that if there is a provable instance in discovery which introduces a genetic factor as explanation of a behavior or tendency, it deserves consideration in terms of accountabiltiy. In this case, it appears that it is posssible for homosexual behavior, or tendency at least, to have a genetic factor. There is also a genetic factor being considered as a possible motivator for rape. Now in neither case is the activity necessarily “good” from a moral point of view, and certainly there can be reprehensible consequences from that standpoint. There are examples in our prisons enough to know that. We also know that behaviors exhibit in degrees and kind. Some of these mitigations are volitional, others are not.

From a moral standpoint as well, we are on a somewhat different footing knowing that a person has such a tendency built in, than if we think that it is strictly a choice on that person’s part, as many seem to think. In terms of a society, we then have to deal with the extremes of behavior that occur in our population. It would seem that if we know that some extremes are built in, we would have more compassion. This would not preclude right action, but it might mitigate one of our favorite sports, i.e., judgement. Notably, this this compassion could extend to both ends of the spectrum, as we have–as a people–not been kind to our saviors either. Arguably, we are not even very kind to ourselves.

Given all that, we might consider that some manifestations of ssa are not socially harmful other than in arrousing indignation in those who don’t feel the same way. And again, there are degrees and kinds of that. We can get moralistic about it, but in the end, we are each not without sin and we are each, ssa people included, made by the same God, are we not?

What I’m saying is that maybe we ought to exhibit the degree and kind of compassion that having such information as the existance of genetic tendency can give us.

This may not be consistent with the same parts of the Bible that are ordinarily used to condemn homosexuality. But if we take the Bible as history, those same books give us a God that condoneded and even abetted rape, murder, incest, public lewdness, genocide, and war in general. In other words, He used His believers to wreak havoc on peoples, His own ignorant children, who had done no other crime than not believing in Him through no fault of their own. They didn’t have prophets born to them, as appearently none other of the entire world had either. That leaves a HUGE job for us, and perhaps justifies the Mormon desire to do reverse baptisms. At least that is an act of kindness in concept and intention, whatever its actuality.

But we are not so kind and our prediliction to judgement would account for much, including the adamantine tendency of people in general to believe that their way is the only way, and it is therefore sanctioned by a god. (sic) I would wager that that as well is a genetic trait as it is universal with humans, as is the trait to seek self knowledge, however askew from Reality that may be.

We have an inborn predeliction that is an imperative to be right. And, it seems, that we will use and bend anything, including our belief in God and interpretations of His precepts, to justify our rightness. After all, what man has done, man can do. If our justification was inclusive, and recognized all men as Children of God in our judgements, that’s one thing. What I am not going with on here is the judgemental attitudes based on ignorance and personality that some on here seem to have. And what I am doing is encouraging us to use our abilitiy to step out of our mental story and see if indeed it is true to fact.

 

[fix]

Once we separate logic and morality from science, or anything else, we can come to all types of erroneous conclusions.

I find the charge of judgementalism misplaced. No one is condemning anyone here.

We have to start with an understanding of what health is and what disease is. If we start with the premise there is no truth then we start incorrectly. We know health and we know non health. We know good and we know evil. Genetics will never invent good or bad.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Once we separate logic and morality from science, or anything else, we can come to all types of erroneous conclusions.

I find the charge of judgementalism misplaced. No one is condemning anyone here.

We have to start with an understanding of what health is and what disease is. If we start with the premise there is no truth then we start incorrectly. We know health and we know non health. We know good and we know evil. Genetics will never invent good or bad.

Dear Fix,
I think here you might be in error.
Let us consider sickle cell aneamea,
This is a double recessive genetic disease,meaning that, if inherited from both parents, the debillitating symptoms ill present.
However, the randomness of inheritance gives a 25% chance of being a non-carrier, a 50% chance of being a non affected carrier, and a 25% chance of suffering from the disease.
What though is not commonly known is tat carrying the gene, give protection against the malaria parasite, which if untreated, is quickly debilitating, to fatal.
So in low lying land, where the oxygen tension is high, and swampy areas are common, the debilitating synptoms only present on serious exertion, and 75% of the population is protected from malaria.
Thus, a genetic error, which in elevated altitudes, (>1000ft), and unaffected by malaria, this disease is seen as bad, but in low lying, (<100ft) warm swampy lands, this error on the whole is a life saver.
There is a similar situation with skin colour.
In areas where the UV of sunlight is very bright, there is a strong tendency or light skinned persons to suffer from skin cancer, whereas, in the darker high latitudes, where the sunlight UV is weak, there is a strong tendency for dark skinned persons to suffer from rickets, (vitamin D deficiency).
So what you might judge as bad, may only be something good, but in the wrong place.
Thus it is something you do not fully understand.
Flies we consider to be disease bearing vermin, but without them, the world would be knee deep in poo.
Likewise spiders we find unpleasant, but without them, the world would be knee deep in flies!

 

[fix]

Again, you are confusing right ordering, pathology, and health.

That certain genetic traits can be useful or pathologic, depending on circumstances, all depends on the understanding we know what health is in the first place.

The foundation of this is moral reasoning, not genetics.