S
savienu
Guest
I don’t think pedophiles choose their attractions either. They choose to act on it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
How does it look now? All of your questions, with minor edits can be asked of heterosexuality.
If heterosexuality is not a choice, then I would assume you believe it is a genetic selection. As such, at what age does the gene emerge and what is the evidence of its presence? For example, is it legitimate to declare a five year old a heterosexual? A ten year old? Is a crush on an girl in a juvenile male sufficient for a finding of heterosexuality? Does the desire for a opposite sex sexual relationship absent that actual act itself constitute heterosexuality or is intercourse required? Does one act establish its presence or are multiple acts required? Is there any way to prove or disprove a finding of heterosexuality? If heterosexuality is not a choice, then how is it possible for one to freely consent to intercourse, and if one’s consent is not free, how is the act licit?
Fianlly, if heterosexuality, either the behavior or at least the deisre, is gentically determined and irresistible, then to what extent are paraphilias such as fetish, autoeroticism, etc. different than heterosexuality? Should those who engage in these other sexual behaviors be protected as a class from discrimination?
I’ve been gay my whole life, as far back as I have memory. I was never sexually abused or assaulted, and I have the most “Leave it to Beaver” family history you could ask for. The only reason I ever went to therapy was to learn how to deal with the abuse I took from anti-homosexual people who bullied and harassed me. I have more than a few gay friends, and only one of them had any of the events happen in their life that “make” people gay. Most of them are exactly like me-otherwise boring, predictable lives with normal parents, normal siblings, normal everything-except their sexuality.
The continual linking of homosexuality with the criminal behavior of pedophilia is hurtful in a way that I can’t seem to explain. All you have to do is watch a few episodes of Dateline and you’ll see that most pedophiles are “normal” straight males.
If heterosexuality is not a choice, then I would assume you believe it is a genetic selection. As such, at what age does the gene emerge and what is the evidence of its presence? For example, is it legitimate to declare a five year old a heterosexual? A ten year old? Is a crush on an girl in a juvenile male sufficient for a finding of heterosexuality? Does the desire for a opposite sex sexual relationship absent that actual act itself constitute heterosexuality or is intercourse required? Does one act establish its presence or are multiple acts required? Is there any way to prove or disprove a finding of heterosexuality? If heterosexuality is not a choice, then how is it possible for one to freely consent to intercourse, and if one’s consent is not free, how is the act licit?
Fianlly, if heterosexuality, either the behavior or at least the deisre, is gentically determined and irresistible, then to what extent are paraphilias such as fetish, autoeroticism, etc. different than heterosexuality? Should those who engage in these other sexual behaviors be protected as a class from discrimination?
I’ve been gay my whole life, as far back as I have memory. I was never sexually abused or assaulted, and I have the most “Leave it to Beaver” family history you could ask for. The only reason I ever went to therapy was to learn how to deal with the abuse I took from anti-homosexual people who bullied and harassed me. I have more than a few gay friends, and only one of them had any of the events happen in their life that “make” people gay. Most of them are exactly like me-otherwise boring, predictable lives with normal parents, normal siblings, normal everything-except their sexuality.
The continual linking of homosexuality with the criminal behavior of pedophilia is hurtful in a way that I can’t seem to explain. All you have to do is watch a few episodes of Dateline and you’ll see that most pedophiles are “normal” straight males.
B
Biggie
Guest
Then on what basis can they be punished?I don’t think pedophiles choose their attractions either. They choose to act on it.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
Consent. A child cannot consent to sex. It’s the same basis used for rape.Then on what basis can they be punished?
B
Biggie
Guest
If the law is not based on natural law, the basis on which I would contend is the traditional posture of our jurisprudence, then it is arbitrary and adrift. I do not think it is true that society “often departs” from natural law traditionally, and think this is a modern phenomenon of which abortion is the primary example. While society is not in the “morality” business, if the law is not built on a common sense of right and wrong then it is built on prevailing opinion. Since the harmful acitivities of the majority as well as those of the minority need to be proscribed, if law is merely determined by popularity it loses its force in effect to norm society and becomes an instrument to restrain minorities and protect majorities regardless the harmful effect of the conduct in question. Society loses its ability to protect itself, the law loses its basis in logic and reason and a society of laws is no longer possible.Possibly I still don’t “get it”, but I will say the following.
Presumably, society is not in the “morality business” but proscribes only those things that are harmful to other individuals or to the society at large, whether or not the perpetrator can “help it”. I do not agree with the proposition on all fours, but I think it’s safe to say that’s how most see it. Thus, a hopeless alcoholic is still punished for DWI.
It is widely believed that pedophile activity harms individuals, though certainly there are those who would argue otherwise or make distinctions among those activities. At one time, the consensus was that homosexual activity has a harmful effect on others. It seems now not to be the consensus view.
I certainly agree that if one approaches the question from the standpoint of natural law, one cannot say that certain activities cannot be proscribed simply because the orientation to them might be genetically determined. In that way, I agree with the OP’s proposition.
I agree that, in deciding which activities to proscribe and not, this society often departs from consideration of natural law. Further, I agree that the legality or illegality of acts ought not to be determined by whether a tendency to commit them might be genetically determined. (“nurture” is another issue entirely, though, as regards homosexuality it might be the more valid consideration.) In principle, if we adopt that, we could with equal validity declare that those of Celtic ancestery cannot be lawfully convicted of DWI and, logically, would be obliged to excuse them.
That is what I believe we are experiencing today.
It is wholly illogical in my view to on the one hand contend that homosexual activity should be permitted because the homosexual cannot control his conduct and on the other hand to punish the activity of others inclined to extra normal sexual activity who cannot control their behavior. And if we have arrived at the point where conduct is held to be genetically programmed, we have difficulty axplaining why we punish crime.
I think homosexuality has a demonstrable deleterious effect on society, a viewpoint you are conceding as antiquated and outvoted. You may be correct as to the latter, but if the harm to society does exist, the effects of that harm cannot be voted away and the consequences will follow regardless.
If a bad conduct did not have a certain following, perhaps even a majority following, the need to conrtol it by law would not exist. It is not simply the bad consequences of an act that necessitate law, but also its potential to gain adherents in the population.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
1–Original Sin: The Catholic idea of original sin maintains that nature is wounded but not destroyed. The process of salvation, therefore, involves not a replacement of nature, but a transformation of nature, particularly in the area of will and desire. The more “reformed” or classically protestant view of original sin is more forensic–man’s nature is entirely corrupt, no good can come from it and it must be entirely destroyed and replaced or covered over.
2–Desire as a Good Thing–the Witness of Experience: Given the Catholic view of original sin, the problem with desire is not so much that it is bad, but that it is misdirected as a consequence of original sin. A person with heterosexual desire can channel that desire towards promiscuity, abusiveness, sexual violence–or toward loving commitment to a spouse, the building up of family, etc. Heterosexual desire, therefore, while suffering the effects of the fall (as evidenced by the fact that poor behavior can arise from it) can nonetheless bring forth good fruit–chief of which is loving commitment–and contribute to the flourishing of the couple involved.
3–Homosexuality–Objective Disorder?: If homosexual desire is objectively disordered, as the current teaching claims, then the witness of experience should show that it is impossible for a homosexual relationship (including homosexual acts) to bring forth good fruit (i.e. loving commitment). This would mean one of two things:a) that homosexual desire represents a special case of original sin which, unlike other desires, cannot be reformed by grace but must be destroyed, suppressed or covered over (though this would contradict the fundamental catholic teaching on original sin) and no good fruit nor any sort of human flourishing can come of it; or b) homosexuality is a subset of heterosexual desire–in which case, the witness of experience should be able to prove that heterosexual desire can consistently, permanently, and without violence or coercion, arise from homosexuals. In other words, there should be evidence and it should be conclusive.
4–The Alternative–homosexuality is its own thing: The evidence supporting position 3b does not exist, however, and the position advocated by 3a is anti-catholic. Moreover, the witness of experience does indeed suggest that homosexual relationships are capable of producing good fruit and human flourishing, further refuting that position. Additionally, church teaching itself, probably based on the witness of experience, seems to concede that homosexual desire is its own thing (not a heterosexual subset). Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is simply part of who some people are. The teaching against homosexual acts largely derives from two a priori perspectives: a) tradition condemns homosexual acts; b) the judgment prejudicing the procreative function of sex over the unitive. But in both cases (as follows from something determined a priori), the witness of experience (i.e. is there evidence for human flourishing, is there evidence that good fruit can be produced) is entirely ignored. In other words, a morality which arises from an a priori position rather than lived experience or evidence does not take human flourishing into account and can, therefore, actually become an evil or a hindrance to that flourishing.
Notice that in considering the moral worth of heterosexuality or homosexuality, the consideration is: can it bear good fruit? Does it lead to human flourishing? Not: is it genetic, therefore can it be licit on some level. Regarding the morality of pedophilia, the same criteria should apply: can it bear good fruit? Can it lead to human flourishing? I think the witness of experience with regard to pedophilia would not lead one to answer yes to either question.
Alison naturally explains all this better than I can. I encourage a visit to his site (mentioned above).
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
I’m a big fan of James Alison’s work in this regard (jamesalison.co.uk). He brings up a couple things to consider in the debate regarding sexual morality. I hope I can do his arguments justice as I believe they make sense.Some people kind of answered my question.
I would like to know why sexual attraction to minors is not considered a genetic dispensation but homosexual attractions are?
I don’t care if one is arbitrarily illegal or not.
Does the medical/psychological community believe pedophilia a choice?
1–Original Sin: The Catholic idea of original sin maintains that nature is wounded but not destroyed. The process of salvation, therefore, involves not a replacement of nature, but a transformation of nature, particularly in the area of will and desire. The more “reformed” or classically protestant view of original sin is more forensic–man’s nature is entirely corrupt, no good can come from it and it must be entirely destroyed and replaced or covered over.
2–Desire as a Good Thing–the Witness of Experience: Given the Catholic view of original sin, the problem with desire is not so much that it is bad, but that it is misdirected as a consequence of original sin. A person with heterosexual desire can channel that desire towards promiscuity, abusiveness, sexual violence–or toward loving commitment to a spouse, the building up of family, etc. Heterosexual desire, therefore, while suffering the effects of the fall (as evidenced by the fact that poor behavior can arise from it) can nonetheless bring forth good fruit–chief of which is loving commitment–and contribute to the flourishing of the couple involved.
3–Homosexuality–Objective Disorder?: If homosexual desire is objectively disordered, as the current teaching claims, then the witness of experience should show that it is impossible for a homosexual relationship (including homosexual acts) to bring forth good fruit (i.e. loving commitment). This would mean one of two things:a) that homosexual desire represents a special case of original sin which, unlike other desires, cannot be reformed by grace but must be destroyed, suppressed or covered over (though this would contradict the fundamental catholic teaching on original sin) and no good fruit nor any sort of human flourishing can come of it; or b) homosexuality is a subset of heterosexual desire–in which case, the witness of experience should be able to prove that heterosexual desire can consistently, permanently, and without violence or coercion, arise from homosexuals. In other words, there should be evidence and it should be conclusive.
4–The Alternative–homosexuality is its own thing: The evidence supporting position 3b does not exist, however, and the position advocated by 3a is anti-catholic. Moreover, the witness of experience does indeed suggest that homosexual relationships are capable of producing good fruit and human flourishing, further refuting that position. Additionally, church teaching itself, probably based on the witness of experience, seems to concede that homosexual desire is its own thing (not a heterosexual subset). Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is simply part of who some people are. The teaching against homosexual acts largely derives from two a priori perspectives: a) tradition condemns homosexual acts; b) the judgment prejudicing the procreative function of sex over the unitive. But in both cases (as follows from something determined a priori), the witness of experience (i.e. is there evidence for human flourishing, is there evidence that good fruit can be produced) is entirely ignored. In other words, a morality which arises from an a priori position rather than lived experience or evidence does not take human flourishing into account and can, therefore, actually become an evil or a hindrance to that flourishing.
Notice that in considering the moral worth of heterosexuality or homosexuality, the consideration is: can it bear good fruit? Does it lead to human flourishing? Not: is it genetic, therefore can it be licit on some level. Regarding the morality of pedophilia, the same criteria should apply: can it bear good fruit? Can it lead to human flourishing? I think the witness of experience with regard to pedophilia would not lead one to answer yes to either question.
Alison naturally explains all this better than I can. I encourage a visit to his site (mentioned above).
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
I guess it depends on what you mean by “human flourishing”. A homosexual cannot “be fruitful and multiply” but that fact does not preclude them from being positive members of society. Because a homosexual following church law has no family, they often have much more time to give to volunteering and more income to donate. A single, childless person can still “flourish” if the definition is expanded beyond child rearing.
B
Biggie
Guest
How can a person who cannot freely resist the conduct in which he engages give free consent? Today we say we cannot proscribe homosexual behavior because it cannot be resisted by the actor. How can his consent to the activity then be construed as free?Consent. A child cannot consent to sex. It’s the same basis used for rape.
S
savienu
Guest
On the same basis ANY of us can be punished for actually doing things that are wrong. We ALL have temptations, whether that be to drink too much, sleep too much, eat too much, or to engage in sexual perversions.Then on what basis can they be punished?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
The larger issue, though, is this–can it be definitively shown that homosexual relationships (including homosexual acts) cannot bear good fruit or lead to the flourishing of the people (as people!) in the relationship? I don’t think it can. That argument doesn’t hold up. Experience shows that good fruit can come of such relationships–love, joy, peace, kindness, etc.
One can easily say, “But the church forbids it, therefore it’s forbidden. Arguments one way or another don’t matter. Look at a mother giving a child awful medicine to get rid of a disease. It’s painful, but it bears good fruit!” But the analogy doesn’t hold: not only does the catechism maintain that a homosexual orientation is not sinful in itself (so of what moral use is a “cure”?) but experience does not indicate that a blanket denial of the possibility of a loving, romantic, mutually committed relationship between two homosexual people is to the ultimate (or even greater) benefit of all such people. The teaching of the church in this area, therefore, is not on the side of flourishing, not on the side of life in its broadest sense, in other words. How can it be binding, therefore?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Thanks for this, fitswimmer–indeed, I consider human flourishing as separate from population growth, as does Alison.I guess it depends on what you mean by “human flourishing”. A homosexual cannot “be fruitful and multiply” but that fact does not preclude them from being positive members of society. Because a homosexual following church law has no family, they often have much more time to give to volunteering and more income to donate. A single, childless person can still “flourish” if the definition is expanded beyond child rearing.
The larger issue, though, is this–can it be definitively shown that homosexual relationships (including homosexual acts) cannot bear good fruit or lead to the flourishing of the people (as people!) in the relationship? I don’t think it can. That argument doesn’t hold up. Experience shows that good fruit can come of such relationships–love, joy, peace, kindness, etc.
One can easily say, “But the church forbids it, therefore it’s forbidden. Arguments one way or another don’t matter. Look at a mother giving a child awful medicine to get rid of a disease. It’s painful, but it bears good fruit!” But the analogy doesn’t hold: not only does the catechism maintain that a homosexual orientation is not sinful in itself (so of what moral use is a “cure”?) but experience does not indicate that a blanket denial of the possibility of a loving, romantic, mutually committed relationship between two homosexual people is to the ultimate (or even greater) benefit of all such people. The teaching of the church in this area, therefore, is not on the side of flourishing, not on the side of life in its broadest sense, in other words. How can it be binding, therefore?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
S
savienu
Guest
Who said they “couldn’t resist?” I have same sex attractions. I don’t act on them. That’s resisting.How can a person who cannot freely resist the conduct in which he engages give free consent? Today we say we cannot proscribe homosexual behavior because it cannot be resisted by the actor. How can his consent to the activity then be construed as free?
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
You beat me to it-I was confused by that response as well.Who said they “couldn’t resist?” I have same sex attractions. I don’t act on them. That’s resisting.
R
rpp
Guest
The disorder of homosexuality, unlike some other mental disorders, does affect a person’s free will. Neither does the disorder of pedophilia.How can a person who cannot freely resist the conduct in which he engages give free consent? Today we say we cannot proscribe homosexual behavior because it cannot be resisted by the actor. How can his consent to the activity then be construed as free?
As for pedophiles, they are hetero-, bi- and homosexuals. However, the proportion of same sex victims is at least an order of magnitude higher that the number of people who have same sex attraction. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that those with same sex attraction are in a higher risk group to engage in pedophilia.
B
Biggie
Guest
Without doubt the same questions can be asked regarding heterosexuality. They can also be answered without standing logic on its head.How does it look now? All of your questions, with minor edits can be asked of heterosexuality.
If heterosexuality is not a choice, then I would assume you believe it is a genetic selection. As such, at what age does the gene emerge and what is the evidence of its presence? For example, is it legitimate to declare a five year old a heterosexual? A ten year old? Is a crush on an girl in a juvenile male sufficient for a finding of heterosexuality? Does the desire for a opposite sex sexual relationship absent that actual act itself constitute heterosexuality or is intercourse required? Does one act establish its presence or are multiple acts required? Is there any way to prove or disprove a finding of heterosexuality? If heterosexuality is not a choice, then how is it possible for one to freely consent to intercourse, and if one’s consent is not free, how is the act licit?
Fianlly, if heterosexuality, either the behavior or at least the deisre, is gentically determined and irresistible, then to what extent are paraphilias such as fetish, autoeroticism, etc. different than heterosexuality? Should those who engage in these other sexual behaviors be protected as a class from discrimination?
I’ve been gay my whole life, as far back as I have memory. I was never sexually abused or assaulted, and I have the most “Leave it to Beaver” family history you could ask for. The only reason I ever went to therapy was to learn how to deal with the abuse I took from anti-homosexual people who bullied and harassed me. I have more than a few gay friends, and only one of them had any of the events happen in their life that “make” people gay. Most of them are exactly like me-otherwise boring, predictable lives with normal parents, normal siblings, normal everything-except their sexuality.
The continual linking of homosexuality with the criminal behavior of pedophilia is hurtful in a way that I can’t seem to explain. All you have to do is watch a few episodes of Dateline and you’ll see that most pedophiles are “normal” straight males.
The attraction to the opposite sex is, in my view, a tendency that doubtless is influenced by genetics, by upbringing and by personal choice, just as all conduct is influenced by genetics, by upbringing and by personal choice. I also think some people have a tendency towards, a weakness if you will, towards honesty or dishonesty, towards sobriety or intoxication, towards chastity or promiscuousness. Of course these are not my original thoughts but those of many, and in my case largely anecdotal just as some of the sentiments you expressed above are anecdotal.
My own unsupported opinion is that the human being is simultaneously capable of a wide range of sexual responses and that sexual interests of various types arise, decline and coexist over the course of a lifetime. The curiosity in, the experience of or the participation in a particular type of sexual act does not create the identity of or substitue for the person of the actor. I am greater than a sex act.
The responsibility to control sexual appetites and behaviors exists for all on a moral basis and rational basis.
B
Biggie
Guest
Correct. Consistent with my view that in many if not all strong bonds with members of the same sex there is a latent sexual potential understood intuitively by both but spoken about or acted on by neither.Who said they “couldn’t resist?” I have same sex attractions. I don’t act on them. That’s resisting.
Now, then if same sex attractions can be resisted, are within the control of the will, on what basis is willful deleterious conduct to be protected?
I think it is clear that the homosexual interest is in promulgating the concept that this behavior cannot be controlled by virtue of its genetic basis, therefore must be condoned. On the moral plain, that guilt does not attach to homosexual activity since it can no more be controlled than eye color. It is by virtue of this concept that those who disagree are termed bigot, in the same way a person who refuses to be open to racial diversity is a bigot, and I think many have vocally made the tie bewteen race and homosexuality.
I think the homosexual interest also, however, is in preserving the concept of “consenting adults” to promote the notion that society should not interfere on that basis and to further depict the conduct as normal. It seems to me the two positions are contradictory, one cancels the other, and points out the emotional over rational appeal of these interests.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
On what basis is all homosexual conduct, regardless of context, deleterious? And deleterious to whom? Is there ever a situation in which a loving homosexual relationship between two homosexual people leads to the flourishing of those two people, the deepening of their faith, the quickening of their love, and the production, by grace, of the fruits of the spirit? If such a situation is an impossibility, on what experiential evidence do you base your judgment?
The issue, by the way, is not so much about self-control, but about the basis on which control ala celibacy is morally necessary for all homosexuals as opposed to the self-control one expects from heterosexuals.
Thank you!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Hi Biggie.Now, then if same sex attractions can be resisted, are within the control of the will, on what basis is willful deleterious conduct to be protected?
On what basis is all homosexual conduct, regardless of context, deleterious? And deleterious to whom? Is there ever a situation in which a loving homosexual relationship between two homosexual people leads to the flourishing of those two people, the deepening of their faith, the quickening of their love, and the production, by grace, of the fruits of the spirit? If such a situation is an impossibility, on what experiential evidence do you base your judgment?
The issue, by the way, is not so much about self-control, but about the basis on which control ala celibacy is morally necessary for all homosexuals as opposed to the self-control one expects from heterosexuals.
Thank you!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
B
Biggie
Guest
If in the first sentence you meant to say “does not” where you said “does”, we are in agreement. Personally I do not know the gender constitution of the pedophile.The disorder of homosexuality, unlike some other mental disorders, does affect a person’s free will. Neither does the disorder of pedophilia.
As for pedophiles, they are hetero-, bi- and homosexuals. However, the proportion of same sex victims is at least an order of magnitude higher that the number of people who have same sex attraction. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that those with same sex attraction are in a higher risk group to engage in pedophilia.
B
Biggie
Guest
Dear DV,Grace & Peace!
Hi Biggie.
On what basis is all homosexual conduct, regardless of context, deleterious? And deleterious to whom? Is there ever a situation in which a loving homosexual relationship between two homosexual people leads to the flourishing of those two people, the deepening of their faith, the quickening of their love, and the production, by grace, of the fruits of the spirit? If such a situation is an impossibility, on what experiential evidence do you base your judgment?
The issue, by the way, is not so much about self-control, but about the basis on which control ala celibacy is morally necessary for all homosexuals as opposed to the self-control one expects from heterosexuals.
Thank you!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
My viewpoint is traditional, therefore my answer to your questions may be able to be predicted - no original thought here, because I feel no need to reinvent the wheel. I have kind of splattered them throughout the thread, but I will try to succinctly state them, at least as an assist to reflection.
Foremost - I believe that all sexual activity outside marriage or in it without an openness to procreation is a sin. Homosexual conduct cannot meet that standard. I believe it is objectively sinful, not because of its effects but because it is contrary to God’s will for the human being. Since God has chosen to reveal Himself by His appeal to human reason, the rationale for His will can be understood as a prediction that sin will produce unhappiness, the absence of fulfillment of the human person. Happiness is to be understood as distinct from gratification and as a condition whereby human potential, my individual potential, is fulfilled. Sorry - I said succint - I do not believe that sin produces happiness despite visible evidence to the contrary.
The injury of homosexual behavior, then, is first to the person, supremely important to God as an individual person. The behavior becomes, by self pronouncement, an identity. The identity confuses an aspect of his personality with his entire person, elevating the one and debasing the other. It deprives the person of fellowship, introducing all the elements of the manipulation present in all fornication into the same sex setting so that the individual cannot rest assured his value to his peers is aethstetic or utilitarian. It isolates the individual, requiring him if he persists in it, to rationalize his behavior to square it with the norm. Good is thereby made subjective, and the persistent individual can therefore no longer identify good.
Leading to the second injury, - to society which mirrors the first on a communal scale. Society is asked to accept the notion that a person is his sexuality.The importance of sexuality to society is inflated and the person is devalued. Relations among men are disrupted, depriving society of normal means of expressing emotion, passions, sorrows because of the association of these with a sex act. Trust of motive and integrity is diminished among same sex peers. Finally rationalizations are shared, agreement is sought on the subjectivity of good and the good is thereby lost.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Thanks for your response, Biggie. It’s much appreciated. While I’m under no delusion that I would be persuasive enough to change your mind about this, perhaps we can challenge each others’ assumptions in such as a way as to produce a healthy and creative dialogue.
Your last sentence reveals something of a rational disconnect to me as it seems to suggest that experiential evidence reveals that homosexual relationships can produce the happiness you describe, but because of the a priori determination that homosexual relationships are sinful, that happiness must be an illusion. In other words, a tree cannot ultimately be known by its fruit. (And are you saying that reason and evidence cannot therefore be part of the conversation?)
Related to this, I quote Benedict XVI in an address to the C for the D of the F:…scientific advances have sometimes been so rapid as to make it very difficult to discern whether they are compatible with the truths about man and the world that God has revealed. At times, certain assertions of scientific knowledge have even been opposed to these truths. This may have given rise to a certain confusion among the faithful and may also have made the proclamation and acceptance of the Gospel difficult.
Consequently, every study that aims to deepen the knowledge of the truths discovered by reason is vitally important, in the certainty that there is no “competition of any kind between reason and faith” (n. 17*Fides et Ratio, *).
In relation to this, I quote James Alison from his paper “On helping the faithful negotiate confusion.”…Church authority has become aware that the advent of “matters gay” in recent years may not primarily center on sexual ethics at all. Rather it concerns an emerging anthropological truth about a regular, normal and non-pathological variant within the human condition. In other words, it is not that the Church’s teaching about sexual ethics is being challenged by insufficiently heroic people, but that the field of application of that teaching is being redefined by emerging reality.
The question becomes, given this emerging truth revealed by reason and experience–is there a way to develop a morality of homosexual behavior which would lead to the happiness, fulfillment and flourishing of the people involved while recognizing that their sexuality can be part of that fulfillment in the same way that the sexuality of heterosexuals can be part of their fulfillment?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Thanks for your response, Biggie. It’s much appreciated. While I’m under no delusion that I would be persuasive enough to change your mind about this, perhaps we can challenge each others’ assumptions in such as a way as to produce a healthy and creative dialogue.
I suppose this is where we most fundamentally disagree–particularly with regard to the idea that the primary moral orientation of sexual activity is toward procreation. While I recognize the natural biological imperative, coming up with a sexual morality which acknowledges but nonetheless restricts the natural impulse (through an emphasis on monogamy) is already an un-natural exercise from the point of view of biology. That is not to say that sexual ethics are pointless (far from it!), but only to say that biology and biological imperatives are not really the goal of morality. The fostering of life, broadly understood and referring not merely to procreation, is their goal. To say that sexual activity is primarily procreative from a moral perspecitve, therefore, strikes me as arbitrary when the witness of experience shows that the unitive purpose of sex cannot be considered a mere second. Sexual activity, given this witness, should be understood as procreative and/or unitive. Sexual activity that is both may be a greater good than sexual activity that is one or the other, but surely sexual activity that is only unitive is of greater moral value (and a good!) than sexual activity that is only procreative.Foremost - I believe that all sexual activity outside marriage or in it without an openness to procreation is a sin.
That homosexual conduct is contrary to God’s will for the human being must be determined by whether or not a homosexual relationship can, by grace, bear the fruit of the spirit. Experience shows such relationships exist. I cannot believe, therefore, that such a relationship would be contrary to God’s will for those involved in it. It cannot be objectively sinful, in other words.Homosexual conduct cannot meet that standard. I believe it is objectively sinful, not because of its effects but because it is contrary to God’s will for the human being.
I agree whole-heartedly with your definition of happiness, and that such happiness is contrary to the mere gratification of sin. Experience shows, however, that homosexual relationships are capable of producing the happiness you describe–they are capable of leading to the fulfillment of the human person.Since God has chosen to reveal Himself by His appeal to human reason, the rationale for His will can be understood as a prediction that sin will produce unhappiness, the absence of fulfillment of the human person. Happiness is to be understood as distinct from gratification and as a condition whereby human potential, my individual potential, is fulfilled. Sorry - I said succint - I do not believe that sin produces happiness despite visible evidence to the contrary.
Your last sentence reveals something of a rational disconnect to me as it seems to suggest that experiential evidence reveals that homosexual relationships can produce the happiness you describe, but because of the a priori determination that homosexual relationships are sinful, that happiness must be an illusion. In other words, a tree cannot ultimately be known by its fruit. (And are you saying that reason and evidence cannot therefore be part of the conversation?)
I’m sure you recognize that the pathological process you go on to describe is neither necessary nor essential. Your assumption, though, seems to be that acknowledging one’s sexuality as part of ones total person is fine for heterosexuals, but not so fine for homosexuals. Are you arguing that the distinction is semantic, that homosexuality is a subset of heterosexual desire? If this is the official teaching of the church, I do not know where it could be found explicitly stated. It also contradicts reason–if homosexuality is a subset of heterosexual desire it should be possible to prove (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that heterosexual desire can consistently, permanently and without violence or coercion, arise from homosexuals. In other words, there should be evidence and it should be conclusive. The evidence, however, does not exist.The behavior becomes, by self pronouncement, an identity. The identity confuses an aspect of his personality with his entire person, elevating the one and debasing the other.
Related to this, I quote Benedict XVI in an address to the C for the D of the F:…scientific advances have sometimes been so rapid as to make it very difficult to discern whether they are compatible with the truths about man and the world that God has revealed. At times, certain assertions of scientific knowledge have even been opposed to these truths. This may have given rise to a certain confusion among the faithful and may also have made the proclamation and acceptance of the Gospel difficult.
Consequently, every study that aims to deepen the knowledge of the truths discovered by reason is vitally important, in the certainty that there is no “competition of any kind between reason and faith” (n. 17*Fides et Ratio, *).
In relation to this, I quote James Alison from his paper “On helping the faithful negotiate confusion.”…Church authority has become aware that the advent of “matters gay” in recent years may not primarily center on sexual ethics at all. Rather it concerns an emerging anthropological truth about a regular, normal and non-pathological variant within the human condition. In other words, it is not that the Church’s teaching about sexual ethics is being challenged by insufficiently heroic people, but that the field of application of that teaching is being redefined by emerging reality.
The question becomes, given this emerging truth revealed by reason and experience–is there a way to develop a morality of homosexual behavior which would lead to the happiness, fulfillment and flourishing of the people involved while recognizing that their sexuality can be part of that fulfillment in the same way that the sexuality of heterosexuals can be part of their fulfillment?
I do not know how this is the case.Society is asked to accept the notion that a person is his sexuality.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
B
Biggie
Guest
Dear DV,Grace & Peace!
I suppose this is where we most fundamentally disagree–particularly with regard to the idea that the primary moral orientation of sexual activity is toward procreation.
Your disagreement is not, strictly speaking, with me but with Catholic doctrine as best I understand it, doctrine which I accept not only on faith but also by virtue of reason. The openness to procreation relieves the marital act from the onus that it was undertaken strictly as self gratification at one or the other party’s expense. It confirms the presence of love in the act, for love must be freely taken up and must be directed outside the self to be love. To say that the two parties consent is not enough, unless you believe that compulsion is patent, that human emotion and motive are accurately discernable, that professions are reliably true. Even in Eden, the confirmation of the presence of love was visible and tangible in the intact Tree of Life.
Jesus associates sin with blindness, and the proliferation of sin with a beam in my own eye, apt analogies from my personal experience. How sure am I of my own motives in my sensuality? Can I distinguish lust from love, or have I rationalized lust because surely I cannot have erred? Since I am a good person and did not intend evil, I must not have done evil. So it follows others are wrong about evil. And if the goodness of my works, misinterpreted by some as evil, are recognized by some as good who have done as I have done, then I am confirmed.
But have I really done well? Even Freud recognized the strength of the effort of the psyche to defend itself, and it is clearly my experience I am the immovable object, before moving which I would move heaven and earth. And yet I am all I can control.
And I am sorry, but I must say that to my ears your well written and thorough response brought the foregoing thoughts to mind. And the following. How often have I been disappointed that the Lord does not recognize the wisdom of my way? And then there are Jesus’ words recognizing I have often tried to manipulate him: “We played the pipe for you and you did not dance; we sang you a dirge and you did not mourn.”
I think I have a mature understanding of the power of concupiscence, physcial and psychological power, intimidating and at the same time humbling. I find the teaching as difficult as Jesus’ own teaching on the Eucharist which drove the crowds away in shock. I feel overwhelming sympathy for us as we struggle in this arena.
I simply think the task is to control myself rather than to remake creation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.