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

[fix]

What if there is a finding that shows multiple sexual partners can lead to a decrease in hypertension? Perhaps this is verified again and again. There is even evidence some have a genetic predisposition to wanting multiple partners.

Now what? We say it is “natural” for certain people and under certain conditions it is even “healthy” to have multiple partners.

I mean it occurs in nature, right? That must mean it is acceptable? Do we say people with these traits are correct to act of them?

I mean genetics proves it is there.

Are people simply the sum total of their genes? Do genes determine right and wrong?

 

[Detales]

Genetics as it manifests in Nature is simply what happpens with genes, and has no morality attached to it. Life is a pressure of creativity and will try anything to see if it works. Morality is a component of awareness associated with a degree of development that includes a sense of consequence. Generally, this sense of consequence is realative to the survival of a group, or of a person. These considerations may range from the private to the global. In Roman Catholic theology, the consequence is termed as salvation, yes or no.

I’m simply implying that to many, the sense of morality is informed by false piety more than it is by consideration of all the relevant data, an act which can preclude compassion.

 

[fix]

Genetics as it manifests in Nature is simply what happpens with genes, and has no morality attached to it.

Exactly.

Morality is a component of awareness associated with a degree of development that includes a sense of consequence. Generally, this sense of consequence is realative to the survival of a group, or of a person. These considerations may range from the private to the global. In Roman Catholic theology, the consequence is termed as salvation, yes or no.

Moral truth is objective. That does not mean ecah person gets it right.

I’m simply implying that to many, the sense of morality is informed by false piety more than it is by consideration of all the relevant data, an act which can preclude compassion.

Too many it is relative and based mostly upon feelings rather than truth.

 

[Vico]

Detales, you said:

“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.”

Since the topic is “what is natural as stated in the Catechism” I will say yes, that is correct, that natural means ideal; ordered, rational, the pure pattern of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Theologically is is because of the influence of Satan on the world (objective evil and temptation to do evil) and Mankind’s misuse of free will (subjective evil).

Genetic defects are just one way that disorder (disease) occurs which can have both objective (inherited and environmental) and subjective (influenced by man’s decisions) factors.

Homework: read Isaiah 5:20, John 9:2-3

 

[TShawn]

" desire of a man for a woman is part of how God designed us for procreation. Sex was designed by God for one thing: to make babies. Because we have immortal souls, there is more to it for us humans. But first and foremost, it is to make babies. Same-sex attraction (SSA) is, in that sense, unnatural. It is not part of the natural order of things. That is why the Catechism calls it “disordered.”

SSA may feel completely natural to those who experience it, but it is not in line with the natural order.

There is also the natural moral law, which is written on our hearts. I believe that the high rate of mental illness, suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse among those living the “gay lifestyle” is due to the conflict between what they feel is “natural,” and the natural moral law.

SSA is a heavy cross to carry, especially in today’s over-sexualized culture of death. My compassion runs deep; I owe a lot to some of my homosexual friends, including my life and sanity. I’d love to say, “Go! Marry! Be free!” but I’d far rather see them in Heaven.

God be merciful to me a sinner,

The above quote comes from Ruthie.
Ruthie you are not alone in your opinion. I wish to state my own. I believe that the reason there is such a high incidence of alcoholism, drug use, promiscuity, etc in the gay community is due to lack of acceptance as people, the horrible way they are frequently treated, especially by “christian zealots”, and other people of prejudice (not implying you or others on this forum are in this category by the way), and a lack of good gay public role models when taken and combined, may lead to these conditions. While I am not gay, but transexual, many people think it is the same thing and believe me. When you get called "sick, twisted, perverted, and told that “people like yourself” should be executed for the good of society (read some of Other Eric’s quotes on this forum in other threads…he is not alone howver, in his opinion…) and blamed for the failure of heterosexual “traditional” families, it’s alot to put on a person and you can only work to destroy someone so far before they break. That having been said, even though I don’t see eye to eye with all views here, there are some very charitable “orthodox thinking” Catholics here that truly do reflect Christ’s teaching in love and humility and I’m greatful for that. -God bless you Ruthie and all others! - Tshawn

 

[Vico]

Ruthie wrote : " Sex was designed by God for one thing: to make babies. Because we have immortal souls, there is more to it for us humans. But first and foremost, it is to make babies."

Besides reproduction, matrimony makes two become one flesh through mutual respect and unselfish cooperation.

TShawn wrote:

'I believe that the reason there is such a high incidence of alcoholism, drug use, promiscuity, etc in the gay community is due to lack of acceptance as people, the horrible way they are frequently treated, especially by “christian zealots”, and other people of prejudice (not implying you or others on this forum are in this category by the way), and a lack of good gay public role models when taken and combined, may lead to these conditions."

I can see where the punitive and judgmental lack of respect for others can make people feel very alone and feeling hopeless, leading to compensatory behaviors or giving up.

Jesus addressed this with Mary Magdelene and those that would stone her.

Certainly all people need to be part of a community, a loving community, in the Holy Spirit, to find lasting happiness. Good behavioral role models (saints) help to inspire us.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The question: What is natural? does not address the case of the exception cases which G_d, by design, or let, or even let built into the design, allows to occur.
What is natural for a genetic male, with a female body form, either naturally so formed, or surgically altered to remove ambiguity?
What is natural for the rarer converse case?
What is natural for the true hermaphrodite?

You might object that these are all un-natural forms, but as they are inherrent in G_d’s design, and that G_d does not make errors, then these varients are intentional.

Now, then, it cannot be that a loving god might deliberately set a stumbling block before an innocent child, so as to cause suffering, so the only remaining loving alternative is that by showing this tolerance, and permittance of variation, G_d is teaching us that we also should accept this variance. For by whose authority might we judge more harshly than G_d.

Given then, the physical variation permittd, even designed in by G_d, we should then not judge the mental and spiritual variation inherrent in the physical variant. You cannot judge the quality of an apple by parameters for an orange.

Obviously these intersex varients are sterile, so the criterion of making babies is irrelevant.
Pair bonding is a deep instinct. Without the possibility of reproduction, heterosexuality is then an irrelevance.

Note here I am abstaining from judging what a bonded homosexual pair do physically. As with medical science, I find that some activities can be physically harmful, as some consider them sinful, but there are other ways of expressing physical affection. Homosexual kissing and cuddling was not in our Lord’s time considered shameful, and in many places, it is still not so.

Yes, I here paint with a broad brush, but then, in the Great Design, did not G_d so paint?

 

[Vico]

The Bible states that original creation was good and: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). It does not state that eunuchs were originally created or that they are intentional. However we read that as a consequence of Satan, and Adam and Eve’s disobedience, evil has entered into the world bringing imperfection (expulsion from Eden and original sin). That original perfection is natural in the sense of ideal and rational. Both form and desire have been disordered as a consequence of the actions of Satan, Adam, and Eve.

Those that are born with a genetic variation which causes an impediment to matrimony (inability to consummate) cannot receive that sacrament (nor Holy Orders I understand). From medical literature I have read, in genetic variations, either the male or female physiology dominates, i.e., testosterone (when sensitive to it) or estrogen, even though all or some of both male and female reproductive systems may be present in one individual.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Bible states that original creation was good and: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).

The account in Genesis is a broad brush outline, in parable form, using language, and concepts acceptable to the hearers.
It is not a detailed account of the minutiae.
Intersex, and missallocated gender cases fal into the minutiae, and are thus not covered.

It does not state that eunuchs were originally created or that they are intentional. However we read that as a consequence of Satan,

That may be your conception, it might even be the official view of Mother Church.
However, what is without doubt is that Satan is also the creation of G_d: all things visible and invisible.
Since the creation by G_d is perfect, thn the presence of Satan is intentional.
To say otherwise is to say that G_d’s creation is imperfect, or that G_d can err, or that G_d is unaware of the consequences of the creation.

and Adam and Eve’s disobedience, evil has entered into the world bringing imperfection (expulsion from Eden and original sin). That original perfection is natural in the sense of ideal and rational. Both form and desire have been disordered as a consequence of the actions of Satan, Adam, and Eve.

Those that are born with a genetic variation which causes an impediment to matrimony (inability to consummate) cannot receive that sacrament (nor Holy Orders I understand).

Can you provide references to this assertion. I find it quite dubious and offensive.

From medical literature I have read, in genetic variations, either the male or female physiology dominates, i.e., testosterone (when sensitive to it) or estrogen, even though all or some of both male and female reproductive systems may be present in one individual.

This again is broad brush. where the dividing line is close, some parts of the body may form male attributes, and other parts female. This could result in a female brain being associated with a male viscera, or v.v. This actually is the commonest form of gender missallignment.

 

[Vico]

That which is created, having free will, can choose to act against the will of the Creator. Such action is called evil because it goes against good (what is rational and ordered).

Canon 1084 section 1 states:

“Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage.”

Canon 1029 sates that one must be rightly motivated to enter receive Holy Orders. So one incapable of marriage due to an impediment, seeking Holy Orders as an alternative, is not considered proper motivation.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

That which is created, having free will, can choose to act against the will of the Creator. Such action is called evil because it goes against good (what is rational and ordered).

Canon 1084 section 1 states:

“Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage.”

Canon 1029 sates that one must be rightly motivated to enter receive Holy Orders. So one incapable of marriage due to an impediment, seeking Holy Orders as an alternative, is not considered proper motivation.

Dear Vico,
Thankyou for your response to my query.
I think however that:
1/ The implication of 1084 prohibits the marriage of the extreme elderly in many cases, and thus is generally ignored, where both partners are openly satisfied with the arrangement.
2/ This interpretation of 1029 is contrary to Our Lord’s teaching in the Gospel, where Our Lord is discussing marriage with Peter, and the concept of eunuchs is raised as being among those blessed, and well fitted to the ministry. Clearly, if entry to the ministry is purely based upon the inability to otherwise be a father, then, that is valid, however, if there is a genuine calling which is independent of the impediment, then it is clearly not valid.

However, I do not recall anyone here talking about marriage, or entry to the ministry; only the propensity for close friendship.

 

[Vico]

To Voco proTatiano:

I send that Canon information to answer your question (rather than to get onto another topic). If one were able to get a priest to marry an older couple in a situation of inability to consummate, then the ratified marriage would be ratified but nullable according to the Catholic cannons. (A Josephite marriage is like that.) I do not know what the actual practice is, as there are no statistics that I know of.

I didn’t mean to misrepresent Canon 1029. In the original comment I wrote “nor Holy Orders I understand” but I did not understand. Canon 1029 is not contrary to gospel because it does not refer to eunuchs but applies (in this context) to motivation to receive Holy Orders; the motivation should not be because one cannot get married.

Getting back to natural sexual desire as stated in the Cathechism: I can see how genetic mosiacism or genetic variations might leave one with a desire that does not correspond with their sexual physiology. That situation would not be conducive to reproduction so would not be natural as stated in the Catechism.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Frankie,

“Natural” in the context of the Catechism, is that which follows from the nature of a thing. For example, fire produces heat.

Man exists as male and female in order to produce offspring. This is part of the natural order of things. The desire of men and women to unite carnally is therefore natural because it follows from the nature of humans.

When I say that something is natural for me, for example, I like golf and am good at it, this is another usage of the word natural that has nothing to do with man’s nature. Golf playing (good or bad) is not a part of man’s nature. It is the same when we day that something is “second nature”. It just means that something is easy for a person to do.

“Natural law” is based on the nature of things considering their purpose. For example, natural law commands to respect constituted authority. The purpose of constituted authority is to ensure the common good. Systematically refusing to obey that authority goes against the common good. Therefore it goes against natural law.

Does this answer your question?

Verbum

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

To Voco proTatiano:

I send that Canon information to answer your question (rather than to get onto another topic). If one were able to get a priest to marry an older couple in a situation of inability to consummate, then the ratified marriage would be ratified but nullable according to the Catholic cannons. (A Josephite marriage is like that.) I do not know what the actual practice is, as there are no statistics that I know of.

I didn’t mean to misrepresent Canon 1029. In the original comment I wrote “nor Holy Orders I understand” but I did not understand. Canon 1029 is not contrary to gospel because it does not refer to eunuchs but applies (in this context) to motivation to receive Holy Orders; the motivation should not be because one cannot get married.

Getting back to natural sexual desire as stated in the Cathechism: I can see how genetic mosiacism or genetic variations might leave one with a desire that does not correspond with their sexual physiology. That situation would not be conducive to reproduction so would not be natural as stated in the Catechism.

Hi Vico,
I guess we can agree on the fundamentals.
the problem seems to arise when translation occurs.
The word disordered implies that there is an error in the system.
Actually, this is not the case.
The system is behaving in exact concordance with the primary design, which allows variance to occur.
It is this variance which has allowed evolution to lift the monkey into manhood.
This permittance of variance is not evil but good, and the variants which result are pathfinders on the road of evolution.
These pathfinders must be allowed their way, provided that they do no harm. This is evolution.
Interfering with evolution is not the task of Man, unless it is a pathway which is clearly dangerous, and one which Nature would block.
Non breeding creatures do arise in nature, and are generally beneficial to society. The ant/wasp/bee family of insects are over 99.9% non breeding. These are the workers.
Similarly, among wolves, omega b|tches commonly accept the role of Aunt to the pack, looking after the cubs while the rest of the pack hunt, or do battle. It is common for these Aunts never to breed, though some do progress to leave the pack.
Maiden Aunts are also common in humanity. Omega dogs similarly seldom breed, taking the role of ‘lightning conductor’ to defuse trouble. In this operation they commonly display very feminine behaviour patterns, which can be very effective in defusing male aggression. There is a great deal of commonality between the wolf pack and humanity in terms of pack organization.
So what is translated as ‘disordinary’ is actually ‘extraordinary’.
These Omegas, then show behaviour which in terms of breeding behaviour is disordered, yet in its correct context, is very useful to the pack, so in the overall view, is not disordered at all.
So I say again, If something seems to be evil, look closer. There may be a deeper purpose, which is also part of the GOOD design.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi Frankie,

“Natural” in the context of the Catechism, is that which follows from the nature of a thing. For example, fire produces heat.

Man exists as male and female in order to produce offspring. This is part of the natural order of things. The desire of men and women to unite carnally is therefore natural because it follows from the nature of humans.

When I say that something is natural for me, for example, I like golf and am good at it, this is another usage of the word natural that has nothing to do with man’s nature. Golf playing (good or bad) is not a part of man’s nature. It is the same when we day that something is “second nature”. It just means that something is easy for a person to do.

“Natural law” is based on the nature of things considering their purpose. For example, natural law commands to respect constituted authority. The purpose of constituted authority is to ensure the common good. Systematically refusing to obey that authority goes against the common good. Therefore it goes against natural law.

Does this answer your question?

Verbum

Hi Verbum,
Permit me please to add my penn’orth.
You say that: Man exists as male and female in order to produce offspring. This is part of the natural order of things. The desire of men and women to unite carnally is therefore natural because it follows from the nature of humans.
That is a very limited aspect of the situation.
Raising the pack consists of more that producing pups. Aunts and Uncles are also needed. These commonly are from the non-breeding stock, some of which are learning how to breed, and some who will never breed. All serve the purpose of raising the pack.

As for pair bonding, this is not the same as male/female bonding, though it does play a part therein. Pair bonding is a hunting strategy, where two hunters work closely together, to take prey.

In a pack hunt this may not be so obvious, but you will often see pairs hunting, and often these are male pairs, as the females are too precious to be put un-necessarily at risk.

Male/female bonding is not of itself, but is built upon hunting pair bonding. In necessity, a breeding pair will hunt s a hunting pair, but as pups grow to fill the Omega role, the precious breeding b|tch will be protected, and hunting pairs will form from the Betas and Omegas.

So homosexual pairing is not abnormal in the pack, neither is it unuseful in the raising of cubs, and so in the rising of the pack.
As it thus serves a useful purpose, it cannot be deemed disordered, as it is an essential part of that order.
Rather than disordered, it is indeed extraordinary.

 

[Verbum]

Hi VPT,

So homosexual pairing is not abnormal in the pack

What you are talking about is **homogender **pairing. It exists in both genders and is positive for the whole community. Callling it homosexual pairing seems to justify sexual activity among members of the same sex, which is not in nature’s purpose

Verbum

 

[Detales]

Dear Verbum,

I don’t know, perhaps you actually intended to say “which is not in nature’s purpose (according to xxx…)” or whatever, but I’m sorry, the way that was put in your post just struck me as remarkably arrogant, as it sounded like you were assuming the mantle of ultimate authority.

Please tell me I’m wrong?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Detales,

I thought that it was self-evident that homosexual activity has no purpose in nature. What does it achieve?

Verbum

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi VPT,

So homosexual pairing is not abnormal in the pack

What you are talking about is **homogender **pairing. It exists in both genders and is positive for the whole community. Callling it homosexual pairing seems to justify sexual activity among members of the same sex, which is not in nature’s purpose

Verbum

Hi Verbum,
I understand your discomfort with the word I used.
However, you are using a non-word.
There seems to be a limited reading of words.
My understanding is that homosexual pairing does not imply homosexuality.
In the usage I have made, sex and gender are synonyms.
However, it is not unknown, fact is, it is quite common for canids in ‘single gender pairings’ to indulge in mutual mounting, whether they be dogs of b|tches.

That though is by the bye.
I have made it clear that what you class as homosexual activity is medically dangerous, and I accept that it may be sinful.
Petting, kissing and cuddling though is a different matter.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi Detales,

I thought that it was self-evident that homosexual activity has no purpose in nature. What does it achieve?

Verbum

Again, my penn’orth, Verbum,
Mother Church accepts and credits heterosexual activity in straight marriage as a positive factor in reinforcing the heterosexual pair bonding.
It could then be legitimately argued that the same argument could be applied to homosexual pair bonding.

So if the pair bond serves a purpose, then the bonding activity serves a purpose.