Catholic Exchange

Sex and the Natural Law

It has been said that much of the sexual ethic of the Catholic Church can be found in the natural law. That is, it can be arrived at by reason alone, without reliance on God revealing things that we could not know on our own accord. If you want to give reasons to a son or daughter as to the why of the sexual ethic you are demanding of them, it is often good to be able to fall back on natural law reasoning apart from revelation. While revelation is actually a more powerful reason, it demands a level of faith that a child may not have reached. Finally, revelation and natural law cannot be contradictory. If they seem to be, one or the other is being incorrectly interpreted.

Assertion: Human beings are the most important things in the universe. If you have to wreck your car to avoid hitting one, you are considered evil if you do not. If the choice is between shooting a human or a bear, the right choice is always the bear. Mountains, trees, baseball, movies: all must bow to the needs of humans. Other humans are worth going through great inconvenience for.

Therefore, the act that creates humans must be treated with dignity and respect. It is not something akin to racquetball or dancing, something done merely for fun's sake. It has nobility that is not lessened by its ubiquity.

Secondly, new humans must not be called into existence without the proper support network ready to receive them: that is, a mother and a father who are committed to rearing them for life. It is even a worse crime to call new humans into existence and later kill them because they were inconvenient. Abortion is a monstrous crime because it places convenience over the lives of others.

Assertion: Sex promotes bonding. It cements people together more strongly than mere enjoyment of the event would indicate. Not only does it create an emotional bond, it seems to anesthetize one to the failings of the other. It is not that you do not perceive the other's failings; they just don't seem to bother you as much as they otherwise might.

Therefore, having sex is not something you want to be doing when trying to evaluate potential mates. You need to be level-headed and perceptive, not anesthetized to a potential mate's failings. How many bad matches happen where you ask, "Why did he marry her?" and the answer is, "It was the sex"?

But just as you want to be clear-headed before marriage, a little analgesic action after marriage is good. Marriage is difficult. Being somewhat blinded to the faults of your mate is good if lifetime marriage is the goal.

Assertion: Sex loses some of its bonding ability when that bond is made and then broken many times. This is supported by the research that says having sex with multiple partners before marriage is indicative of a higher divorce rate.  Conversely, those who have sex only with their eventual marriage partner have a much lower divorce rate.

Therefore, sex before marriage is dangerous in as much as it will weaken sex's binding properties within marriage. How about if you "know" he is the one? He is the one when he stands in front of his family and friends and pledges himself to you. Before that, you are playing roulette with your life and his.

Assertion: Sexuality has a lot of strings. These strings can be tied to the oddest things. In 19th-century China, foot binding was the rage. Women of culture had their feet bound as girls so their feet could not grow normally. The toes were curled under and the feet left small and misshapen. Misshapen, smelly feet were erotic for Chinese men of the age. Were these men crazy? No, they were men just like the ones walking around today. Your sexuality can be tied to an enormous number of things. These strings are there to be tied to your mate.

Therefore, leave your sexuality untied until you can tie it to your mate. Premarital sex, pornography and masturbation all tie your sexuality to things that are not your mate. This keeps the sexual bond from being as strong as it could be. Remember, marriage is difficult. Wouldn't it be great if the things that turn you on are the look of your wife, her breast size, her legs, her type of underwear? You want the quirks of your husband, his way of speaking, his odor, his caress, to be what set you off. It is much more difficult to think of leaving someone when their being screams sexual allure at you.

When your fetish is something besides your spouse, you will tend to want your spouse to conform to your fetish, usually with poor results. People want to be loved for who they are, not for pretending to be someone or something else. You are then stuck trying to rewire yourself, which is always much harder than wiring yourself correctly to begin with.

Assertion: Sex feels great and can be extremely habit-forming. Sex is one of the few things in life that can actually live up to its billing.

Therefore, sexual habits are some of the hardest to break. Forming the habit before you can licitly indulge in it means you will be driven again and again to hurt others and yourself. It becomes much harder to say no after habitual masturbation has started. It is much harder to stop after having sex with a partner than to say no the first time. Indulging a little bit usually leads to indulging a lot more than originally expected.

Assertion: No one wants to be treated as a means to an end, an object to be used. Everyone wants to have his humanity appreciated. People are the ultimate ends, not objects. One of the things that throws sand into the gears of a marriage is when one is treated as an object: "I am just a maid to him." The desire not to be an object is nowhere more visceral than in regard to sex.

Therefore, good sex must be kept at a higher plane than pleasure, which is self-centered. It must have a nobler goal. The creation of new life and the strengthening of the bonds of marriage are called for here. These goals ennoble the sexual act, taking it from the use of the other for your own enjoyment to the procreation of new life and the purposeful bonding of yourself to the other. The fact that it also feels good is a side benefit, not the goal.

N.B.: Agreements where people want to co-use each other as objects almost never last. As time goes on, people change and one always feels cheated. This can drive sex from being a binding thing to a divisive thing. This is one of the pernicious aspects of the contraceptive culture: It can split spouses with the act that should be their greatest glue. This is borne out in research. Spouses who do not use contraception have a minuscule divorce rate.

Assertion: Homosexuality is unnatural. This is so obvious that it is odd that it needs to be defended. When you look at the plumbing, Tab A goes into Slot B. Homosexual relations cannot generate children even between two people of normal fertility. Simply because some people end up wired that way does not mean it is natural. One who is wired that way is wrongly wired — and this wrong wiring is a torment, so much so that we call it a cross.

Acting out homosexually will only drive one deeper into a same-sex fetish (see above). People who suffer same-sex attraction can and do get married. Tying as many of their sexuality strings to their spouse as they can and seeing the sexual act as a noble endeavor within marriage can soften the cross they bear. A spouse and family are a great good to a person and society. Acting out the homosexual lifestyle will close off this great good to a person.

Summary: The facts — that humans are supremely important, that sex binds, that sex is addictive, and that sex can be tied to things mean that sex is a fire that must be kept within the fire ring called marriage. The prohibition on "treating people as objects" means that even in marriage, sex must be for higher purposes: procreation and the marital bond. Homosexuality is an unnatural condition whose effects can be ameliorated by the proper approach to sex.

Each one of these points can be expanded and investigated at length. In a Catholic perspective, they should be followed up with what the Church teaches and the evidence in Scripture and Tradition.

Comments

61 responses to “Sex and the Natural Law”

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    What a great article!  This should be required reading for youthgroups.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Hi Mark..I agree with perhaps 85-90% of what you've written..kudos,and they are well-deserved..I will not speak of the 5-10% with which I disagree…a blessed Fourth to all..:) 

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Unbelievable! Homosexuality is " unnatural." What can that mea, Mark? That it is super-natural? Infra-natural? Is it unnatural as " not part of our finite spatio-temporal contunuum." Obvilously not. Perhaps unnatural as " not conforming to Natural Law". How question- begging an answer is that! It is circular to say that Natural Law "rationally" prohibits homosexuality because only that sexual activity is considered rational and thus "natural" which is capbale of generation. Homosexuality may not and does not fulfill that"rational"criterion, but the criterion itself is not an instance of the Natural Law, as you claim, unless one accepts the above premise, again, circular and question- begging to do so. One then ultimately must revert to revelation not reason viz. we believe because it has been revealed that homosexuality is a sin?  It is the use a font of all sorts of immoral disposition, sentiments, an dactions generated by then foisted upon our gay brothers ansd sisters. It – "unnatural" – is jibberish because (1) Homosexulaity is not unnatural ; it appears in our finite continuum of natural events; (2) if it is wired, then it is natural! It is not supra- or infra- natutral is it? Besides, wired does not mean " and I constructed this wiring myself; I chose to make it that way!" No. Wiring comes about from genetic encoding of our trillion synaptic frameworks, from acquired experiences early on that gradually shape sexual identity ( sexual prefernce is a laughable term! ) and from an interplay of the two. There are genetic models that ground homosexuality as both natural and wired. The immoral aspect of the appellation "unnatural" is obvious to any thinking person since it has historically and presently continues to fuel a host of immoral attitides and dispositions towards our brothers and siters. " Unnatural" issues easily into " wierd, deformed, not like us, sinful, odd,…prejudices, calumny, marginalization ….finally to hanging stretched out dead in the snow on a Colorado cattle fence because "God hates queers." Remember? We the Church must do better than our current take on homosexuality. 

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Iwall, God love you!  I comment seldom, but sit on the sidelines.  I realize these articles are op-ed pieces.  Mark does not need to respond to each and everyone of your diatribes.  Let it rest.  You are so wordy, my brain spins trying to even follow your argument.  And there is the problem, you want to argue.

       Please, for the sake of decency, let it rest already!

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, that the practice of homosexuality is unnatural and that homoerotic desires are intrinsically disordered is not merely Mark Minardi's opinion.  This really is the teaching of the Church.

    There are people who attempt to ingest — or even do ingest — things that most people do not consder food and that are not able to nourish the human body, such as bits of hardware. We call their desire unnatural and consider it a pathology (as homosexuality was once recognized) even though "it appears in our finite continuum of natural events" as you put it — because the appearance of a human behavior in the world is all you need to call something "natural". You are simply arguing that everything that can be done by a human being is natural for a human being.

    Scripture and Tradition, that is to say, the Catholic Church, teaches otherwise. See Romans 1:26, 27.  On this website we present in various ways and by various authors, that teaching.  We welcome questions about it. But this is not a forum for arguing against it, because at heart, CE is for Catholic evangelization. Please see the "About Us" tab above for our mission statement.  We are not a forum for debate about Catholic teaching.

    (I have removed your post to Mark Shea at the bottom of this article because this is not the place for it.)

    Mary Kochan, Senior Editor, Catholic Exchange

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    (New kid on the block,just waiving a hand.)

      (Responcible sex.)

     

        Sex is still the most fun that you can have with out laughing in or out of marriage.

        The good lordd blessed humanity with a lifetime of good healthy sex and decreed that any sex that man fails to use will be fed the the woprms.

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I am a Catholic convert of 15 years, married for 29 years, with two young adult boys.  This is, without question, THE best article i've ever read on sexual matters within the bounds of the church.  Thank you, Mark!

    Thank you, too, Editor Mary for your excellent comments to Lwall, they are much appreciated. 

     –You have made us for yourself, O Lord; and our hearts are restless until they rest in You. — St. Augustine

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don't mean to belabor any point made,but,if you will: please delineate between the "homo-erotic desires" referenced above,and the difference from that to the (I paraphrase) inclination or disposition to a same-sex attraction,which the Church tells us is not a sin? If one is living a chaste life,but the fleeting thoughts were not of a wife and kids,although not acted upon,where is the sin? I mean ,really,unless there were some element of sexual attraction in the mix,on what would the Church be speaking when she says the disposition is not a sin? 

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall and grumpy, the Lord rebuke you, I humbly pray…

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    CathyCee, one thought that comes to mind is contained within the public confession said aloud by the faithful during Mass: …in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do.

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    CathyCee, I did not say that homoerotic desires were sinful.  I said that they were disordered. The Church teaches that same-sex attraction is disordered.  Acting upon it is sinful.  Acting on heterosexual lust, as for example in fornication, is also sinful, but the underlying desire — for sexual union with one of the opposite sex — is not disordered.

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    In response to part of your argument that simply states that because of a natural inclination, this must be natural as being passed on genetically and thus, acceptable:

    Firstly, homosexual attraction has yet to be determined as a genetic inheritance. In fact, before the 1970's (also before homosexual lobbists requested this alteration) Psychology textbooks listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder; it was considered a result of a negative impact within one's environment.

    Secondly, it seems you are confusing the natural life and the moral life.   Morally, because we have an inclination towards something does not make it acceptable to act out on it. Concupiscience (the inclination towards the passions leading to sin) causes man to sin and through Grace that we can overcome sin. Using the principle established in your response, it would appear that concupiscience is present in all persons and thus, not wrong.  However, concupiscience is also unnatural although all persons have it.

    Furthermore, if one were to inherit something that could lead to sin, this inferitance is still not referred to as natural. Alcoholism is a product of both one's environment and genetics. For instance, because I am genetically predisposed to alcoholism due to my deceased relatives does not make it acceptable that I act out on this genetic disposition nor does it make this disposition acceptable because I am "wired that way". Although I am "wired that way" I have yet to think of my self as marginalized, weird (although that may be debatable if you speak to my siblings), etc.

     Our Lord teaches us to love the sinner, hate the sin. While I agree that many injustices (such as what happened to Matthew Shepherd) are perpetrated upon those with homosexual tendencies, it is obligatory, as lovers of our Lord, to acknowledge the sin of acting out on these tendencies, and if possible, show them the destruction that this sin causes. Authentic Christian charity leads the individual to want the best for that person, with the understanding that the best for that person is, although personal application, an objective reality, not a subjective one (i.e. you do what you like and label is "best for you" and I do what I like and label it "best for me"). I hope all of this helps to clarify. 

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Clair, CathyCee, Suz Slu and others,

    Thank you for your kind words. They mean more then you know.
    Mark
    The study of God is a study of Love

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The Matthew Shephard case is a case of misreported facts.  The two men who abducted Matthew Shepherd did not know he was gay.  They robbed him and then killed him, however the killers did not know he was gay until interrogators told them he was, thinking it was a "hate" crime.  

    Gay activists seized on the opportunity to use Matthew's death to  portray it as a hate crime. 

    The fact is the men who killed him did not know he was gay until after they had killed him.  They didn't kill him because he was gay, they robbed and killed him for his money.  

    The liberal press has done a good job of covering up the truth on this.  All crimes are hate crimes not just the ones where a person's sexuality is concerned.  This is another area where words are used to inflame passions.  If you call a crime a "hate crime", it grabs more attention.  However, all crimes involve hate, period. 

      

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    THIS pciture on the home page is terrible! The woman looks like she's about to — well, I can't say it, can I?  Inappropriate pic for a family or Catholic site

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I agree deirdew!

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Diana,

        Wow, I never knew that.  You are so right that any crime is a hate crime.  Of course, it's terrible when people are attacked for being gay (not that I approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but I don't think violence is the answer).  But, as you said, attacks on people for reasons other than their sexuality are just as bad. 

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: I am appalled at your comment re: my post. I am  merely claiming that the argument from natural law is self -serving: that "rational" here reduces to "what the Church sees as conformable to its set of logically connected and cohereing meanings" wherein rational just means "that proposition which  be made to cohere with a set of beliefs and meanings" or not, in which case the propositon is called irrational. By that definition, any- ism that is rationally and logically cohering and logically connected is rational…Nazism was a coherent belief system and natural ! But this is a truncated view of rational. It speaks more to revelation as grounding its premises. It is not therefore, universal, rational, or logical, deduceable "law " in the least!  Natural too falls prey to the same critique as rational, for here it is doctored up to mean, not that which appears in space-time, but a special prequalified sense of natural wherein natural should include the qualifier 'insitrinsically well-ordered or good."  Now what does it mean to say something is "intrinsically disordered"? If something appears in space time it may not be natural in the case of its being also intrinsically disorderd??  What a convenient qualifier! What an expedient concocted to serve "Church teaching'!  It might be said that intrinsically disordered  means "an action so contrary to God's will that under no circumstance can it be otherwise." But I ask : is that not question- begging and just re-assertion of the original claim? Yes. For we still wantl to know "How is it "intrinsically disordered" ? Is it disordered intrinsically because non-procreative? If that suffices for the Catholic answer, I again point the circularity and self-referential quality of that (non) justification! Thus far,mkochan,there is no rational law, no rational argument, that lets us arrive this teaching. It is only "rational" or "unnatural" if one has already accepted a host of background premises and meanings relative to these very terms. Now, mkochan ,you tell me this is a Catholic website for the purposes of evangelization, not a place for "debate." Is it a place for uncritical acceptance of doctrine and place for mutual back-slapping and accolades heaped upon editors and each other? If so, I am dissappointed. I still maintain that the rational and natural arguments are not only untenable but are not conformable to the latest science which leaves open the genetic question as well as the complex question of causality and generates a host of immoral attitudes and epithets exhibited by and held to by The Body of Christ, influencing the non-Christian world to the same and unjustly dispositions hurled unjustly upon our brothers and sisters in Christ. This is behavior, prejudice, and collage of dispositions is not "loving the sinner and hating the sin"! And it all stems from us having "called them out" all right – out of full communion with the Church!! – because they are unnatural, irrational, instances of intrinsic disorder and sinful, wierd, to be treated as a "special class..".. THIS IS THE SIN!!!  Furthermore, please reference for me and for others all of what Our Lord proclaimed about the sin of sexuality. Reference the Hebrew Scriptures too? In terms of hypocricy, why don't you relate some stats to tell your readership what percentage of the U.S priests are "homosexually disordered", just how many "unnatural" and /or "intrinsically disordered" priests we actually have. You will not do it, mkocahn.

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    LWALL – There are things that can be debated, and things beyond debate.  Homosexuality has been defined for all time as intrinsically disordered. End of debate.

    Yet beyond the rationale of natural law, one can examine the Gospels to see that – without quibble – our Heavenly Father is a fruitful God (there are a number of passages wherein our Lord Jesus teaches us so), and homosexual sex is a fruitless experience, like masturbation.  The inclination of one towards homosexuality does not rob a person of his/her essential dignity, but engaging in homosexual acts DOES rob one of his/her essential dignity.  The torment of homosexual inclinations is not to be minimized, but is not to be indulged, either.  We must pray for all people who toil with heavy burdens of misplaced desires.

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    DEAR EDITORS OF CATHOLIC EXCHANGE,

    The picture for this article is inappropriate, especially by the standards laid out by John Paul II in his various teachings on the Theology of the Body.  The public forum is not the place for such a picture – please remove it.
  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    God created man and woman. There was nothing in between. That is the natural order.

    God created Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve).

    That is the plain truth. End of debate Cool

    God is good… All the time!

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    LWALL

     

    I submit a few comments in reply to your posts.

     

    You are free to quibble with my use of the term “unnatural”. I did not mean to imply “evil.” I would be happy to consider a more appropriate word. By “unnatural” I meant to imply not as designed. Men are designed to mate with women. This seems obvious even if you deny the existence of God. By my use it is unnatural to eat paint, walk on your hands, force milk through your tear ducts and many other things you might see on Letterman.

     

    Unnatural things in my usage may or may not have a moral component associated with them. In the case of acting out homosexual urges, I do think that they have a moral failing associated with them. From just the moral law it comes from not giving the appropriate the honor and respect to the act that generates humans deserves and from cutting yourself off from a spouse and family.

     

    You also seem to equate hating the sin with eventually hating the person. In a way you are right that we fallible humans wrongly hate others because of what they do. Your anger at people who appose homosexual activity is an example of this. However the solution is not for one to quit trying to proclaim the truth because others might misuse it. We must all push the mantra “Hate the sin, love the sinner” all the harder.

     

    My article did not presuppose any arguments from the churches teaching. So they are not circular in that way. If you want to argue with my assertions you may. If you want to argue that my conclusions from the assertions are flawed you may and they would then be irrational as you assert.

     

    Whether homosexual attraction is caused by nature or nurture is not really germane to the discussion of its morality. There are many ways that a human can be born wrong: with narcolepsy, attention deficit disorder, anger management problems, prone to alcoholism, etc. Being born with these problems is not the fault of the person. However we tell the oft-angry person that he must learn to control himself and it is wrong to act out even though he really wants to.

     

    Finally you imply that because one has homosexual tendencies one must have sex with others of the same sex to be happy. I do not believe this is true. There are many people throughout history who have given up sex altogether and been very happy; priests, nuns, widowed, married people whose spouse has lost the ability to have sex, etc. It is only very recently in western culture that the idea of denying yourself sex equates to denying your identity. This idea does not exist in the east. Acting on your sex urge or not does not fundamentally change who you are.

     

    May the blessings of almighty God be with you and remain with you forever.

     

    Yours in Christ,

     

    Mark Minardi

     

    P.S. Why does having homosexual members of the clergy have any barring on the church’s teaching? Rather I think that it points to the truth that the church while hating the sin does not hate the sinners.

    The study of God is a study of Love

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark, thanks for the thoughtful response. Let me retrace the term"unnatural." I am urging that the term is a loaded term and is self-serving as follows: You say that homosexuality is unnatural meaning  "not as designed." But what could this possibly mean other than (1) homosexuality is a behavior which the homosexual person designed for him/herself? Surely this is not your meaning,is it? or…(2) maybe by equating unnatural to"not as designed" you intend that homosexuality is a perversion of what God has designed for human sexuality ,namely, sex as heterosexual union only. But surely you don't mean this either do you? Can you envisage mere man so powerful as to disrupt what God designed? Now,if you answer, Yes!, then that involves you in equating "unnatural" with "sinful/evil" since the deliberate and intentional perverting or contradicting God's intended design for sexuality ( or anything) is tantamount to and, in fact, the definition or essence of sin, no? Yet, Mark, you expressly state in your response to me, " By unnatural I did not mean to imply evil."  But here it is, Mark. Calling homoswexuality unnatural because contary to God's design reduces to calling unnatural sinful/evil.  Thus to say homosexulaity is unnatural is to say it is evil by your own lights.

    Another consideration: The self-serving quality of the argument hinges on calling those actions unnatural and against rational, natural law which do not conform to already agreed upon precepts. There is no intervening account as to why or how a given act which we discover in nature is against nature or against "natural law" except by pre-loading natural law to mean, as in our instance under discussion, certain specific actions such as homosexulaity which we deem as unqulifiedly and always sinful. But this is circular clearly. It amounts to saying homosexuality is against the natural law and hence unnatural because God designed sex to be heterosexual and only heterosexual. ( That itself is not the conclusion of any argument but rather a confession of faith in revelation.) And then further to say that only those acts are natural which are as God designed them to be. So being outside God'sdesign , homosexuality is unnatural.  But this is patently tautological, Mark. It is merely saying, "Homosexuality is unnatural because it is unnatural." or, " God designed and intended men/woman to be heterosexulal only because this is the way God designed it." Mere tautology. Now you can believe this if you choose. But that belief is not a deduction of reason or of nature considerd sub specium rationalis. It is first of all, belief in revelation, then, secondly, it becomes reason set within the context of so called "natural law" and its pre-accepted tenets and principles.  So this is why your invoking unnatural is so wrong- minded to me and others. It is a dognatic assertion rather than a deductuion from reason, unless one pre-loads reason as one pre loads natural to mean only that which conforms to revelation. This is not so-called natutal law nor reason. 

     Another issue involves a question of your own consistency: How can you say that giving in to unnnatutral sex urges, acts which by your own admission are contravening God's design and hence unnatural, carry no moral wieght, involve"no moral failing" ? If an act or urge is "intrinsically disordered" because contrary to design, then how can acting upon such an urge fail to carry moral weight?

    Another issue…it is a very thin veil separating the appelations sinner, unnatural, and intrinsically disordered proclaimed from on high by the Church and foisted upon our brothers and sisters from whom the Church refuses Holy Communion and the hateful, ostracizing, and judgmental sequlae that have followed and continue to follow. No , Mark.We do not need to repeat a mantra; we need to actively embrace and bind up their wounds inflicted by our so called "proclamation of ther truth." How much time did Jesus spend urging the sinfulness of homosexuality?

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, in case you did not read it the first time I wrote it: that the practice of homosexuality is unnatural and that homoerotic desires are intrinsically disordered is not merely Mark Minardi's opinion.  It is the teaching of the Church.

    What the Catholic Church means by "natural law" is the rational creature's participation in the eternal law, i.e. divine wisdom.  God's standard of conduct for us is ascertainable by the rational investigation of our whole nature including both the design of our bodies and minds and the entire web of relationships that contribute to human flourishing.

    We have already clearly distinguised in the article and in my accompanying comments the distinction the Church makes, Mark Minardi made, and I made between homosexual desires and homosexual acts.

    We seek the good of homosexuals, who since they are human beings, have no objective good end that differs from that common to all human beings. Serving others, marrying a person of the opposite sex, begetting and rearing children — these are the keys to their happiness. That is an objective reality.

    What is separated with a thin veil — that is getting thinner by the moment — is your identity with that of a dissenter from Church teaching.

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: Thank you for your brief response. I realize you must be busy with many CatholicExchange matters, but it would be nice to read a little more expansive treatment from you. I have read some of your material elsewhere, and it  is quite good. I here, now intend to address your response to me then explain something of my viewpoint. First, let me just say what may not be obvious. My background and current experience include an advanced medical degree, post graduate degree in philosophy, undergraduate teaching experience in philosophy[ but not this semester], consultant and contributor to several published books in theology, devotee of Biblical scholarship mostly that of the Catholic scholar J.P. Meir, and long time student of Catholic theology. Thus, I am all too familiar with Catholic doctrine re: homosexuality. You can be sure that I am aware of the source of all that I am criticizing where I intend "criticize' as the literary sense.

    In terms of my being a"dissenter from Catholic teaching" as you call me …May I remind you that Catholic doctrine, albiet questionably not in matters of faith and morals, has shown some degree of plasticity over the centuries. An example. At one time, all non-Catholics were seen as hell bound. As of Vatican II, no longer. We could multiply examples. Each example, of course, would meet with readership indignation. Naturally, it all hinges on what one regards as a matter of faith and morals. Back to point. Galileo was a dissenter, excommunicated if not close to it, harrassed mercilessly by the Church, and "invited" to recant his science for the sake of upholding Church doctrine and hegemony. ( And please, I know of the Church's defense narrative on the Galileo matter.) The dignity of the rational human spirit -with God as its creator surely knows and edifies it –  is so well captured in Galileos assertive mutterance as he departed the scene of his "invitation to recant –  " Still it moves!". Likewise the The Church's present deployment of of certain grounding metaphysical categories such as "intrinsically disordered", "natutral law", and "unnatural" are coming to resemble the Church's justifying rhetoric of Galileo's time. To wit, science and true human rationality and compassion will eventually dismantle the above metaphysical notions. It has already happened in philosphy, and much prior to postmodernism! It will take quite a while, but the Church will "come to see" – and not without having suffered continuing loss of membership and other froms of protest from within her own ranks – that She is in need of re-describing [ never would she revoke] homosexuality. When science with the aid of the rapidly advancing sophisticated neurocomputational models showing us just how we humans acquire and /or become " wired",  it will no longer be intellectually possible nor respectable for the Church to foist "unnatural, disordered, especially intrinsically disordered upon certain members of the Body. The category of "intrinsicality" will either self-deconstruct or be re-descibed under the weight of a mounting Galilean type irrefutable scientific evidence.  We will come to see that homosexulaity as a biologistic developmental phenomenon resulting from varying degress of genetic encoding interacting with and neurosynaptically framing  experience/ relevancing of the social world at large from within one's unchosen  neural framework. We will see that early experience is indeed quite early, meaning pre-pubescent and even before. We will come to see what most scientists already know, that homosexuality is not a choice anymore than your own heterosexuality is a choice. We will then come to see the horrific weight and suffering that we have caused these people as a regrettable moment of Church history because we have desribed them officially from the Teaching Authority of the Church as intrinsically disordered. Yes, we made this pronouncement in good faith asserting that only heterosexual procreative sex is ordered, natural, good, because"designed'. Homosexuality is unnatural because disordered and contrary to design. It is more self-serving and sinful than self-stimulation; homosexuals in fact are unfit for Holy Communion, etc.  Now I urge that the design and natural law locutions  historically and currently held to are grounded in the near-dogma belief that only heterosexual union ideally participates in the inner Trinitarian life, "imitating in the flesh God's generosity and fecundity." ( CCC para 2335). But the future turn to made by the Church will be prompted by the realization that the mere absence of the ideal can no longer be equated with presence a grave sin and disorder, to be equated with sin and evil when acted upon. We will no longer see the mere absence of the ideal order, especially when exhibited by many our own Catholic brothers and sisters, as necessarily the presence of evil. We will realize over time that certain humans just find themselves as homosexual as you, heterosexual. There is no room here for assigning blame for those absent the ideal nor is their room for accolade for those of the ideal. Each person male and female is a dignified image of God, and we must and will under God's will, find a way genuinely not just nominally to uphold that most basic truth, where uphold includes a revocation by way of re-desription of the now  pejorative terms "unnatural" and "intrinsically disordered" and all the other social and ecclesiastical spiritually damaging sequelae that such locutions generate; and where uphold means that the Church does far more than repeat a mantra – as was previously sugested to me ! – but actively embraces and begins to bind up wounds She has caused. Now I do not think the Church will "endorse" homosexuality. Nor should she. But I hope and pray She comes to a re-desription of the term homosexuality that is truly merciful and forgiving, that She no longer feels compelled to describe the mere absence of ideal sexuality as necessarily depravity, but rather as a phenomenon of the human being as one uniquely created by God despite incapacitated fully to fully in sexual ideality and design. Again, the homosexual urge is not a choice. It is probably a combination of generics and an emerging neurocomputaional social framework from early experience. And please, let's not analogize the dimension of sexuality, love, committment, and human relationship to murder. Some on this website have retorted  " A hah! Just because a person happens to be wired as a murderer, would you then say he is not sining when giving in to those urges.!"   His/her iobjective good, as you state in your post, lies in heterosexual love and procreation. But that is meaningless for the homosexual, just  the statement of an utterly unattainable end for the vast majority of homosexulals  And ,yes, the Church has come around to stating that the urge per se is not sinful, just gravely disordered!  But we must ask, who made the disordering? Did the homosexual design him/herself that way? Did he just willy-nilly find him/herself on planet earth as a carrier of this speciial burden that would break the backs of most of us? If we as Church really believed what we hold as true, this belief in the special burden and Cross  of the homosexual would reflect itself in all manner of special recognition, minisitries, outreach, etc.  rather than the leprosy- like avoidance mostly manifest in real life.  But then also to hold that this unchosen urge must forever remain unactualized; that it is at the same time a special lifelong Cross to bear is just inhumane. I do not believe God gives us salvific knowledge that carries such immense and far reaching inhumane consequences. We must find a better way that does not mean endorsement but certainly a way far removed from the current locutions which issue in theological and de facto ostracism, judgement, suffering, and exlusion. A massive move towards a genuine mercy and reconciliation must trump justice and ideality at times. Let's not let the Truth we hold in our hands and hearts be proclaimed in this divisive and hurtful manner. Of course, I trust in the Holy Spirit who surely will eventually show the way. Thanks. 

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The article is outstanding in that it is 100% accurate and succinct.

    Further, it allows for discussion of the issues even if the reader has not progressed far in their faith and understanding of Catholic teaching.

    It was the Natural Law that first called my husband to question contraception long before his conversion.

    Regarding the picture, it is so suggestive that I couldn't have CE up as my homepage all weekend.  I know that MKochan doesn't choose the photos, however, this is akin to porn.

    Thank you again Mark, my teens will read this and I'll discuss it with them.

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, It is no more inhumane to require of the homosexual that "this unchosen urge must forever remain unactaulalized" than it is to require, as God's and the Church's law does, that numerous other unchosen urges to committ sin remain unactualized. (For that matter, the doctrine of Original Sin means that most of our urges to committ sin are in fact unchosen by all of us.) Of course, given our fallen state, many of these sinful urges will be actualized among human beings until the end of time and God's provision for this is the Church with her ministry and sacraments. The Church does not deny homosexuals per se communion, so stop represtenting that she does. She denies all unrepentant practicers of sexual sin communion, without singling out homosexuals.

    That is God's law.

    We can also stop being quite so sensitive.  Yes, indeed there are homosexuals, some who I know, shouldering their crosses and attempting to live lives that accord with human dignity. There are many others quite determined to dismantle the very fabric of society to accord with their flagrantly debased life style. They must be fought and we must protect our children from them — call it avoidance if you wish — I don't care what psychological terms you throw at it. if we did not have to expend so much time and resources defending ourselves from them, we might have more to give to ministries that assist homosexuals who are trying to live godly lives. However, there are such resources, not to mention the fact that homosexuals have what all the rest of us have, prayer, the sacraments, Scripture, etc.

    The objective goods of family life and procreation are by no means meaningless for homosexuals unless a homosexual is incapable of friendship and affection — in that case his problem goes beyond homosexuality into sociopathology.

    The Church's category of natural law will never disappear as it is woven into Scripture as surely as into the human conscience. The Church's description of homosexuality is in no way unmerciful.

    Dissenting from Church teaching does not stop being dissent just because one avers that a. the Church will catch up to me someday or b. I am just another Galileo.

    (What did the enter key ever do to you that you so disdain its use?)

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    BTW, everyone. I asked our graphic artist yesterday to change the image. I am sorry about this.

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, How much time did Jesus spend urging the sinfullness of shaking a baby so violently that the action would cause harm or death or throwing a baby 10 feet across a room into a wall or on partial birth abortion? The answer is none, and the "reason" is because it needs no "reason" other than it is "unnatural" and to try and "justify" the action in any form is the work of the "evil" one. One need not have this information revealed to him by God. It can be derived from the "natural law".

    Your arguments, while laden with words that force the average Joe to locate a thesaurus, are repetitive, incohesive and put simply, very silly in terms of the subject matter. Who are you, that you have determined that the Catholic Church, filled with the Holy Spirit of Truth, has erred in the teaching that she has placed before the faithful so that they may attain eternal life?  Are you the modern day equivalent of St Paul, Martin Luther…?

    As for Sacred Scripture, since you deny Sacred Tradition and the authority of the chair of Peter with the Magesterium, I submit the following for your consideration:

    Leviticus 18:22

    1 Corinthians 6:8-10

    Romans 1:24

    As for the receiving of the Lord Jesus Christ in the sacrament of Holy Comminion, I dare say that the Church, as Pope Benedict recently stated to the faithful, rightfully teaches that someone who is not righteous in the eyes of the Lord should seek reconciliation and all the understanding that comes with it before one presents himself to God lest he suffer greatly for his ignorance. 

    1 Corinthians 11:17-32

    1 Corinthians 10

    Finally, your discussion/argument leaves no room for understanding on your part yet you seek to sway the faithful away from the one, holy catholic and apostolic church. How,then,should one perceive your posts?

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    David T,…Wow! What a collage of venom and nasty epithets you are capable of? Can you also construct an argument that actually makes sense? David, Jesus Himself did not say much of anything re: homosexuality. You refer to Levit. and Pauline sources. The killing of the innocent is wrong in all moral languages spoken and practiced.  It is widely accepted as grossly immoral. Homosexuality is not as self-evidently wrong as murder as shown empirically even within the non-Catholic body of Christ and in other cultures who do not share the Catholic view. It is not, evidently, just unarguably wrong as your example, murder. I seek to bring the Church to a more genuine moment of mercy and reconciliation with Her distressed members.  I see ideality's absence as not the same thing as evil's presence.There must be found some middle less condemnatory ground.   

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, please listen to yourself: "I seek to bring the Church to a more genuine moment of mercy and reconciliation with Her distressed members." Even given the most charitable construction, such a statement makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.  David T. may have been too forceful, but the gravitas of his post is in this: "Who are you, that you have determined that the Catholic Church, filled with the Holy Spirit of Truth, has erred in the teaching that she has placed before the faithful so that they may attain eternal life?"

    I suggest some time spent pondering that may serve you better than continous voluminous posts here.

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    God loves you .

    To keep it short – and tongue firmly in cheek, please –

    – can I give into my natural/unnatural/preternatural urges to kill lwall?

    Oh, Church, can you open your arms to me – just expressing the full humanity I feel at this moment?

    (And, I don’t get any ‘required’ sex, merely heterosexual as it may be – can I fill-in with violence, like TV does?)

    Remember, I love you, too

    Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    What you seek, although it does not manifest itself in every person who calls himself Christian or Catholic, is surely present in the Church.

    I have presented no venom or nasty epithets, only answers to your requests and questions to your intent.

    Where the Church and you disagree is in your statement: "Homosexuality is not as self-evidently wrong as murder as shown empirically even within the non-Catholic body of Christ and in other cultures who do not share the Catholic view."

    What culture, besides a faction of the modern western civilization, adheres to the thought that homosexuality is a natural occurrence in the development of man and should be embraced as such?

  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The following is not a condemnation by me but merely a truth that was present two thousand years ago and proof that the Word of God transcends time. The modern western civilization and all its evils has existed for all time. They are not merely understood differently today. We are no more enlightened today in this regard,than we were back then. Some seek the answers in science, refusing the participation of God in all that is seen and unseen. Others have become confused because of social acceptance and our willingness to enable destructive behaviors in the name of love. Examples being abortion, contraception and, yes, homosexuality.

    To state that Jesus never said anything re:homosexuality, is to lack understanding of the Trinity and the Church's teaching. We, as Catholics, believe that They are One. He is in the Father and the Father is in Him.

    Because people do not read the Bible and pray for the wisdom to understand what they read. Because people would listen to the word of the liberal media and so-called prgressive minds rather than the Word of God as interpreted by the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church, I submit the following: 

    Romans 1:18-32 NIV

     …as inspired by the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. He is worshipped and glorified. Amen.

    18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

     21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

     24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

     26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

     28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: I have never stated that the Church erred. I am speaking in the same manner as Cardinal Newman as in his "development of doctrine". Are you telling me that as a member of the Body of Christ that I can not nor should not – except under pain of recrimination displayed towards me from others and yourself as in your post- urge that She advance in the development in Her teaching on homosexuality?  I am disallowed this take on the subject? Development, as I am certain that you are aware, is not equivalent to revocation. Development does not presuppose prior error. The Church to date has used locutions that only lately have attempted to assuage the deprecatory and harmful sequelae of Her teaching. However, in light of ongoing psycho/social/genetic studies I would hope – as I have stated- that the Church soon come to re-describe the same teaching namely that homosexuality is not the ideal, but for that we must not feel so exorcized over the sinful and abominable nature of the homosexual inclination or person in a manner that we ourselves lose sight of the reconciliation and loving concern that IS our Savior's teaching and IS our vocation. We have been so steeped in describing the unnatural, contary to design and intrinsically disorderd feature of these peoples's unchosen sexual inclination that we have pushed away an entire segment of the People of God excepting, of course, the priesthood! We will soon, I pray, as Church come to embrace what medical associations conclude as a result of solid evidence-based research: that homosexuality is not a sinister choice, that is multifactorial as to  causation, that it is not a willful turning from God, nor is it exhibited by those who wish only to live an autonomous licentious lifestyle; nor is it correctable or reformable for the most part; nor is it a "disease". This, mkocahn, is where we need to be, so to speak… developing this doctrine in light of newer insights that do not negate God's truth and ideality and flow from an understanding of new facts and insightd which councel us nowto change our tone and locutions; urge us now to withdraw from a too oft enjoyed tendency towards an exhilirating intoxicating  that virtually thrills in condemning  and judging in the name of Christ and the Church; this militant soldier and defender attitude which some members in the Body of Christ exhibit and, sorry to say, appear on this website. We must defend the Truth. Yes, but without mutilation. New locutions, new or at least re-decribed theological grounds, new sensitivities, inclusion over exclusion, compassion, invitation to dinner….enough of intrinsicality,unnatural, and theological papers!  Thank you. By the way, I am heterosexual.

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, I'm fairly logical and I don't see any logical conclusion to what you propose, no matter how well-motivated you are, other than the inviting of practicing homosexuals to receive Holy Communion. In fact, you seem to be all but explicit that that is what you are aiming for. Why not go ahead and include practicing fornicators, adulterers, child molesters, etc? Why should the mortal sin of homosexual relations be singled out for the special privilege of its practicers not having to receive reconciliation prior to partaking of the Eucharist?

    Either homosexual relations put one into an objective state of mortal sin — in which the case the Church would be remiss and unfaithful not to warn her children of that fact — or they do not — in which case St. Paul was wrong.

    But if homosexual relations do not put one objectively into a state a mortal sin, then neither does any other sexual activity out of wedlock.  Or maybe you would like to argue that homosexual relations are ONLY objectively sinful outside of wedlock and therefore the only just thing for the Church to do is to marry homosexuals to one another.

    In other words all your high language and insistence on love and gospel etc. etc. turns into, in the final analysis, the militant homosexual agenda – either full acceptance of homosexuality and other sexual sins with a concomitant destruction of the sense of sin (needing early and often educational intervention) or the demand for homosexual marriage.

    If you were a homosexual, you would have some excuse for this in that we would all recognize, as St. Paul put it, that your intellect had been darkened by sin so as to make this your agenda.  I don’t know why, being as how you are heterosexual, you should have taken up this rainbow flag, but you are not in a good place.

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    BTW, Lwall, no one said — and it was not in the aritcle — that homosexual desires are in themselves always the result of a sinster choice. (They may SOMETIMES be the result of a sinister choice as when indulgence in pornography of a particular kind paves the way for experimentation in homosexual activity — a not uncommon path into homosexual relations for women.) In fact, your last post is full of arguments against things that no one said in this article or comments and that the Church does not teach. Straw men.

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: Well, this has been interesting and eye -opening to me. I am not worried that I am "not in a good place". I do not believe God Almighty condemns to hell those who you claim are in "an objective state of mortal sin" . How you mangage to misconstrue my intentions and express my meaning with such hyperbole is very disappointing. The call for more mercy, compassion, new re-descriptions …in fact, nothing of anything I have urged brings forth from you the slightest hint of compassion and reconciliation. What comes across abundantly clear is a recalcitrance and entrenchment that I urge can only further divide and injure the Body of Christ. empirically speaking, this is actually taking place as hundreds have exited Her doors never to return. Homosexuality is not going to disappear from the human [ yes, they are human ] species. Nor will that quite natural phenomenon be remedied by you, the Church, psychotherapy, or anything. So we must learn to proclaim the truth without damaging those who already are suffering so. mkochan, it would be much more consistent with your strident insistence on the objective mortal sin of homosexuals if you were to advocate something new and really efficacious by the Church aimed at actually saving those whom, I hope, you so sincerely care about; that is, actually care about them more than as exemplars of objective mortal sin or as object lessons in natural law, intrinsicality, etc. Mkocahn, what do you want the Church to do? Nothing different at all? Are you satisfied with the staus quo? Do you really care or are you just content uttering the mantra, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." We have done a plenty the former. It is time to begin the later. If you say, Yes, then I am sorry to say that answer would itself be far from what the Lord Himself would answer. As to Holy Communion, No, I am not urging as you suggested.Pull back your horns a bit. Think of things. What is happening now is not very good. Thanks. 

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Is anyone in mortal sin? Is there any mortal sin?  Is there any hell? Huh, Lwall?  If you are worried about these poeple being saved, why? What do they need salvation from if there is no reason to fear that any of them will go to hell?  Why do they even need to be in Church at all? What does it matter that they left?  Does their leaving in any objective way endanger their souls?

    My own need for the Church is very desperate and it gets more desperate with every passing moment.  I believe that I need the sacraments of the Church to strengthen my faith and get me to heaven.

    I am certain that there are people with SSA who feel just as keenly their need for the Church. Who understand and agree with her teachings.  Who bear their cross with great heroism. Who will be glorious in heaven. But you think that you need to remind me that they are human beings.  Give me a break.

    No, what is happening now is not good, but it is part of the general trend to rebel against all moral strictures. Homosexuals are not being "driven" out of the Church and if anyone, homosexual or otherwise, leaves over the teaching of objective moral truths, that is not the fault of the Church.  Plenty of people have left over the issues of contraception and divorce as well.

    I have heard and read plenty of arguments put forth by those homosexuals who have left the Church — they all boil down to one thing: the Church must not tell me that there is anything wrong with me or morally wrong with what I want to do. Every single one of them proclaims dissent from the teaching of the Church. I have never once heard a homosexual say, "I agree that homosexual acts are objectively a mortal sin and I agree that homosexual desires are disordered and I would have been happy to remain in the Catholic Church if only the people were more friendly toward me and if the Church provided more ministries to help me remain chaste."

    The Church does not need anything "new and efficacious" to save homosexuals, because they are not a new unique class of sinners.  They are saved from their sins just like the rest of us human beings are saved from our sins and just like untold, uncounted numbers of homosexuals are currently being saved from their sins and not leaving the Church.

    Do I want the status quo? No, of course not, I say with St. Paul that I desire "all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17: 30) and like all baptized and confirmed Catholics I share in proclaiming the unchanging apostolic exhortation: "We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20).

  40. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    LWALL,

     

    I understand that you think there is new information on the nature of homosexuality being uncovered by science. And that this changes the equation. I question whether it truly does.

     

    It really does not matter how your wiring came about. If you chose to wire yourself incorrectly that would be a sin. However, subsequent homosexual episodes would not be any more sinful then if you were wired for it from birth.

     

    The Church teaches that denying the sinfulness of homosexuality is what separates you from communion. Openly living the homosexual lifestyle is similar to living in an open sexual relationship with anyone that you are not married to. It is the proclaiming to the community that this lifestyle is not sinful that the Church has the hard time with. If you are merely a homosexual who falls but admit his sinfulness then welcome to the sinners club and stand in line with us at the confessional.

     

    In the end it does not matter what is homosexuality’s causation. It does not matter if it at first was a willful turning from God, nor if exhibited by those who wish only to live an autonomous licentious lifestyle, nor whether it is ultimately correctable nor if it is a disease.

     

    As with all sin you try through the grace of God to live by His precepts and if you fall you get up, confess your sin and keep trying. The Church accepts all homosexuals under these terms and promises them heaven when they persist to the end.

     

    By the way, I believe the Church’s 12 step program called Courage has been very successful in helping homosexuals live with their cross.

     

    Further, I do not share your enthusiasm for many of the latest philosophers. Their philosophy tends to be nihilistic, materialistic, and subjective. Know well that if a philosophical point of view does not jive with revealed truth it is the philosophy that is wrong. While I am sure that there are things in modern philosophy that will be shown to mesh with revealed truth when the next Aquinas come around, but until then I would be wary of it. I know for certain that nihilism and materialism go against the grain of Church teaching.

     

    Finally I think that you are a perhaps too quick to infer motive. Everyone on this website who says, “homosexuality is intrinsically disordered” is not implying that homosexuals are evil or putting them down. They are usually practicing the first spiritual work of mercy: admonishing the sinner.

     

    MKOCHEN did not disparage homosexuals in any post as far as I can tell and yet you consistently accused her of doing so. We should take people at their word as to their intent.

     

    May God bless you and your household. In Christ I pray, amen.

     

    Yours in Christ,

     

    Mark

     

    The study of God is a study of Love

  41. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan and mike: The point I would now attempt is a just continuance of my motif all along, but in a slightly different key. It concerns the exodus from the church by homosexuals which exodus I urge serves to illustrate the damaging effects befalling souls in the wake of the Church's handling of this important issue. What we have done and what we have failed to do… but need to re-think and re-address. As mentioned, it is one thing to proclaim the truth and to point out objective mortal sin as pertaining to a specific act by a person who, shall we say, slipped up this one time. It is quite another thing  to have preached from on high that just not certain actions of a person but one's entire sexual being and orientation are flawed, rotten to the core, intrinsically disordered, an abiding danger of being cast into hell. The locutions unnatural and intrinsically disorderd, while intending to call to repentance amd convict the sinner of sin, have by virtue of these locutions manged to communicate ( unintentionlly) and perpetuate not only among the Church but also among the wider culture that these particular people are weird, quasi-sinister, to be specially categorized,… see, even the Church rejects them! almost as "untouchables"…There has been an ecclesiastical reiforcement of prejudice and stereotype albeit largely inadvertent. The point is this: Being told in theological terms and from on high that one's entire capacity for intimacy and sexual expression -which capacity comprises much of a persons identity and being – are intrinsically disordered and unnatural is, shall we not say one, of the most existentially shocking things the human could ever hear. Joe had an encounter[s] outside marriage,repents,and receives absolution. He goes away now as blessed Joe. There is no sense of Joe's being rotten to the core. No sense that despite absolution Joe's very being is nonetheless intrinsically flawed and disordered. Joe's being and dignity remain intact. mkocah herself made the analogy earlier concluding that at least the fornicator/adulter's sin concerned heterosexual union and thereby properly ordered as oppossed to the homosexual's special category of "fornicator PLUS". See, there is forever and always an extra added, non-remediable blot against the homosexual : his very being prior to any specific act is so unnatural and so intrinsically disordered that he can never escape even for one second of his life this sense self-depravity; himself as a core dis-value. He is just sin waiting to happen to a degree outdistancing us ordinary sinners. He is a special person. The Church, mkochan, tells him this whether explicitly or least implicitly.  My point concerns how we have not well addressed the existential, spiritual impact upon souls. We have always historically been mostly content with pointing out the sin and have taken precious little effort in comparison to minister. I agree that "Courage" is moving in the right direction. But it is a little too late for the vast majority of homosexuals who have left and who would never touch the Church again with a ten foot pole. The upcoming generations of homosexuals will do the same. It is just humanly shortsighted to say " Your entire being [ a large and important part of it ] and capacity for sexual relation and relational joy is just rotten at its core." and at the same time to say," But come to confession and join us in the liturgy." I am not intending by the above anything theological. I am merely illustrating the concrete effects of being told you are specially marked, that danger lurks in your very being and identity whether or not you have chosen to be this way or are "wired" this way. It doesn't matter to God, for you are in His eyes and ours the very embodiment of sin-about- to -happen. Your very core being is intrinsically flawed. Again, this is extreme existential shock and despair and requires efficacious ministry. Now, Joe is a repeat adulterer, but he unlike you, is not intrinsically disordered and flawed. He just likes women besides his wife. But at least Joe likes women ( this is a prior mkochan illustration.) A confession and intenttion to amendement will suffice for Joe. But where you are concerned, it's your very being  at issue.You may confess, but God is still displeased with your orientation. Something remains in you. Obviously, a person being told by the Church that his being is at issue requires a special type of ministry. Proclaiming truth – something the Church is quite good at -carries with it moral and spirtiual responsibility. And in the case where truth bears upon a persons identity and core dignity, it requires special care and ministry. lOn the whole this has been lacking. Mkocahan states that homosexuals left the church because they did not want to be told that homosexuality was an objective mortal sin. I believe that is accurate to a point. While I have no studies to refer to, I would guess that some significant number left because they found it impossible to regard themselves as depicted by the Church's official theological characterization of them. One's very sense of self and dignity are left dangling in the breeze and denigrated without any positive effective program for rehabilitation. Again, proclamation of the truth carries the burden of ministry and care of souls. For too long the Church has revelled in proclamation, theological treateses, letters, etc. But most people are not converted by reading apostolic exhortations or hearing the truth only. And this is a matter of empirical fact and also consonant with human anthroplogy. Suffering humans need other humans. Gesturing to objectivity, mortal sin, intrinsicality, disorder, unnatural, Biblical citations while true and necessary are nonetheless CLEARLY not sufficent. Mike: I do not know the nihilistic and materialistic current philosphers you refer to. Who are you reading or familiar with? Thanks.

  42. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The problem Lwall, is that it is the truth that homosexuality is disordered and homosexual relations are unnatural. Now you want either for the Church not to say this truth or to say it in such a way that it is not shocking or disturbing to people with SSA (a term I prefer to "homosexual" as it does not identify the person with his sexuality).

    However, I notice that in order to accomplish this, you have had to reach all the way into the Scripture and attempt to deconstruct into absurdity the inspired testimony of St. Paul by declaring that the term "unnatural" has no meaning.  Amazingly enough, the fact that in order to accomplish what you (allowing for the very best intentions) lovingly intend on behalf our brothers and sisters in Christ who suffer (the Church's word) with the cross of SSA demands the dismantling of Catholic moral theology and the conclusion that the Holy Spirit understands nothing about nature and the human psyche bothers you not a wit.

    Like I said, bad place.

    And not as loving as you intend either, because you seem to think that if the Church said something other than the truth here, it would have some kind of positive effect of those who suffer from SSA.  This is because you are denying what the Scripture and Catholic psychology acknowledge – that this natural law is as undeniably written upon the heart of the person with SSA as on the heart of any other person.  That heart (conscience), as is true of any of our hearts, may be seared, the intellect,as is true of any of our intellects, may be darkened by sin, but the sense of wrong will never be erased completely, because it is the conviction of sin by God available to all men irrespective of their association with the Church.

    In other words, even if the Church were to heretically declare tomorrow that homosexuality was natural and that homosexual relations would henceforth be sanctified by a marriage covenant, that would not ease the consciences of people with SSA. They would still experience the torment of a bad conscience squirming within them and creating turmoil (aggression, addiction, self-loathing) in their lives.  But the Church would have left them dangling. She would no longer be helping them to understand WHY they were experiencing these things. She would no longer be offering the healing of sacramental grace for this objective sin. You need to understand that God's condemnation of sin is present in the world – in the human heart – prior to the Church and outside of the Church. What the Church offers is not the condemnation but the forgiveness of sin.

    Let's leave this where we agree – that we should lovingly respond to people who suffer from SSA and, like the Church teaches, all unjust forms of discrimination against them should be eliminated.

  43. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochah, yes, we should stop where there is that agreement. Thanks.

  44. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Ministry.pdf

    The above link is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and provided in the footnotes are enough refence points to define the total teaching and care of people with an inclination to homosexual behavior.

    Lwall, may I humbly suggest you should spend a little time reading what you wrote, and, forgive me, if I take you back to your original comment so that it may shed some light on reactions to your posts on what is most definitely a Catholic website and under the ultimate authority and teaching of the Catholic Church.

    Your first reply to the article was the following:

    "Unbelievable! Homosexuality is " unnatural." What can that mean, Mark?"

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

    Empirically speaking, one can surely look to nature and see that all life exists due to the interactions of a male and female. Upon observing this natural occurrence without any societal programming, one would inquisitively seek to understand why the same sex of any species would utilize its reproductive organs for anything other than bringing forth new life. For example, a young bull of a particular species may symbolically mount an older, weaker male in a show of dominance. Dolphins participate in the sexual act similar to humans in that it is not done so for the sole reason of reproduction. Since we have no Dr. Doolittle, we continue to observe and seek to understand. And then that creature we call man; what seperates us from all other species on the planet?

    The ability to reason one's actions. Instinct, though present, can be tamed{Gen 4:7}. Man responds to desires that are pleasurable. To paraphrase Prof Janet Smith, God has instilled in man a want to eat, drink, sleep and to be with one another so as to satisfy our basic needs and insure our survival. We partake in these acts because they are pleasing. However, we rightly understand over/under eating, drunkedness and lethargy as disordered and, if continued unchecked, these will lead to the destruction of the body and, for God-fearing people, torment of the immortal soul.

    Sex, which according to Christopher West has always meant one's gender, has been redefined to include what is known to the followers of Christ as the marital act and beyond. In the image of our Creator, we seek to place things in their order. While we reason that the marital act is surely for the regeneration of our species, we also understand some of the mystery in regards to love and in particular bonding. To determine the marital act to be simply for pleasure and at the disposal of any human being, at any age, with anyone is irresponsible. The natural end of the love between two people is to bring forth new life into the world. I recently spoke with an infertile couple who had to overcome the feeling that when they performed the marital act it seemed empty and loveless. This and other perceptions help us to understand.

    To define adultery, polygamy, multiple partners, pre-marital intercourse and, yes, homosexuality as being disordered is not to promote ambiguity or prejudice against a person so inclined, but to keep a beacon of light on the truth that was so from the beginning. In any thing we undertake, we must first determine if it is for good or evil{Rom 12:2}. Only a modern thought process seeks to legitamize that which derives itself from a lie. If two men and a woman were all that were left in the world and the men chose eachother, then we woulde cease to exist. However, we would also have failed to recognize the dignity of woman and the purpose of mankind. To love one another.Forgive the weak anology, but if there were only a man and a woman and she chose abortion, the same would apply.

    Now, of course, because of the complexity of man, this is a mutifaceted issue requiring fasting and prayer of a magnitude that I being an average member of the Body of Christ am incapable of on my own. Hence, I take great comfort in the fact that, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church has been endowed with the Spirit of Truth forever and that our Lord Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrements and that He will be with us until the end of the age in the Eucharist. We must avail ourselves of the full use of the tools that have been provided to us.   

    To Lwall, I truly believe that if what you seek is mercy and compassion for those afflicted, you will find it in the Church. And you will also find persecution and hate by those misrepresenting the Gospel. Another mystery?

    Jesus said, " If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."{Matt 16:24}NIV Our crosses are many and they bear extreme weight, but Jesus also provides, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."{ Matt 11:29-30} NIV

    For all who have read to the end, I apologize for being voluminous, and I am encouraged by you all.

    I am always reminded how difficult it is to be a Christian and that, in itself, is no reason to stop trying.Innocent

    In Christ,

    David

  45. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    David T : I thank you for your considered response. I enjoyed reading your post, and it was not too lengthy. Firtsly, I am very familiar with the CCC's treatment of the issue. Secondly, the objection I raised earlier to the word "unnatural" is the term's patent falsity, to wit, all events occurring in this space-time continuum are natural. I received a response qualifying unnatural to mean not conforming to natural law,contardicting God's design,etc. There is a special meaning then for the term "unnatural" which according to that usagae presupposes a moral quality. However, I urged then as now that one does not have to invoke a subjective sense of "bad moral choice" or " willful disobedience of God's design" in order to understand homosexuality. The CCC states the ambiguity of its causation and rightly so. And the current science substantiates by way of evidence- based research that  homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, explicable though not exhaustively, by entirely natural causation including a genetic component, early experiences in the developmental sense of that term…etc. Again, one is not required to invoke any additional causative factor such as moral or theological qualifiers in order to understang homosexulaity. Yet the Church so emphasizes the sinful qualuity of homosexuality – as you say "keep the beacon of light on the truth" in calling sin, sin – that people begin to surmizes homosexuality as most clearly regarded as primordially sin,that is, a chosen deliberate act definace performed by a sinful lost soul, fully knowledgable of the garve matter involved, without being under compulsion or any other exculpatory pressues. etc. But this is far from the case. No small measure of this type of ill-thinking has infected the Body of Christ and the wider culture. But what is tragically missing is the picture of homosexuality being an entirely natural phenomenon and with a relatively constant percentage of the species manifesting it throughout history. Now, to adjudicate that homosexuality is unnatural, intrinsically disorderd, and an objective mortal sin is not a  conclusion attainable by reason alone, that is to say as I did say, such an evaluative assessment concerns and stems from faith and revelation. But over the years the Church's locutions and theology have emphasized the sinful character of homosexuality at the expense of the care of souls who are being called these things. I see this as an unarguable tragic fact. Exodus! 

  46. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Well, I have read the majority of these posts and it seems clear to me first of all that we are confusing among the majority of these posts different understandings of homosexuality.  That is to say it must be made clear in the posts if you are refering to the actual sexual act or to homosexual desires.  

        I would like to give an example of how this difference is important: I myself am a married man and like most married men find women attractive.  However, there is a very large chasm of difference in seeing another woman other than my wife as attractive and actually acting on that desire.  One is a naturally occuring desire (just as the same-sex desire is among certain people) the second however (the action) is the part that has a moral aspect.  If I was to take this seeing of another woman as attractive and decide to act upon it in an effort to have some sort of sexual relationship with this woman either imaginary or real this would be the immoral part.  I would be doing something just as immoral as someone with homosexual desires acting upon them.  

                This differnce between the desire and the action is key to understanding Church teaching on this issue (and other issues for that matter).  The Church (and logical/scientific reasoning) agree that people can be born with or conditioned to have homosexual desires.  This can be said as well for a host of other desires such as violent desires when growing up in a violent family, drug desires when born to a mother who is an active drug user or growing up in drug environment, etc…  Now in all of these cases the person who counsels these individuals has a difficult task.  They must make it clear that these desires are for things that are going to harm them in the end, but also make this individual not feel rejected in their entirety.  It is hard when these desires are so strong to seperate yourself from them. 

              The Church teaching is in reality true love and compassion on this issue.   A parent who truly loves their child wants what is best for them and wants them to be truly happy.  If I was unwilling to do my best to prevent my daughter from doing something I know from experience is wrong simply because it will make her upset with me or because she will be unhappy with the decision that would qualify me as not only a bad parent but in the end as not truly caring. 

                      The position that we should be more caring to people with homosexual desires is totally correct.  We should be caring enough to help them through their struggle, and also caring enough to tell them what is right and wrong.  This is not to say that we will cure them from their desires, but that we will help them control them.  Which of course is true freedom.

                  Now about the usual tactic of pointing to the very small number of preists who have been involved in homosexual acts and that somehow this flies in the face of Church teaching, this simply shows lack of understanding of Church teaching and slightly less so knowledge of some basic statistics.  First of all in the Church teaching homosexual sexual activity is what is immoral not the sudden desires one may have.  So in fact the preisthood is a perfectly acceptable position for a man who has had homosexual desires, but has learned to control them (just as a heterosexual preist would have to).  The fact that some preists have failed to control this homosexual desire does not disprove that homosexual sexual activity is immoral.  In the same way, the fact that some heterosexual preists have failed in their vow of chastity also does not prove that sex outside of marriage is ok.  I for one agree that a certain percentage of the human race (more or less) has homosexual desires, and I have compared that statistic which (unless I was informed incorrectly) is around 10%.  Now (unless I am informed incorrectly) much less than 10% of preists have been even accused of homosexual activity.  In fact it is more like 1% or 2% in the US and virtually zero elsewhere.  Now this simply shows that the other 8% or 9% with these homosexual desires have learned to control them which of course is the ideal under the teaching of the Church.

               There is a final point I would like to make and this is to rebut the general notion that a desire that is held back leads to some sort of mental trauma or strife.  Now I am not going to argue that this is never true, but instead show that we in fact demand that people hold back their desires on a myriad of actions all the time.  This starts at a very young age with potty training, goes through general social behaviour guidelines, and includes among many other things the teaching to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike to control their sexual desires.  It is a very natural desire to pee when I want to pee and eat when I want to eat, but this is called instinct and that is what dogs and cats do and humans without education and direction would also do. 

               Now since I know that it is for their own good I teach my child that the desire to pee in his/her pants is not correct, and even if they don't like it I would do the same about homosexual desires if one of them was to have them.  I would also do the same about incorrect heterosexual desires for that matter, and this is what shows that I love them.  I care enough to correct them.

     

    God Bless, 

  47. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, as always, you say alot. So forgive me if I take time in reading and processing all that you have written and address items from previous posts so as to form a whole picture of your thesis.

    It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches the same for all sinners; eternal life or eternal damnation. God does not consider the sins of a lustful heterosexual any more, or less for that matter, than a lustfull homosexual. Jesus teaches, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matt 5:29

    To give in to your desire to sin is enough. We can go back to the beginning and spend a lifetime on what was wrong with Cain's offering in the sight of the Lord. So I do not paraphrase: Gen 4:2-7 …Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

     Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

    But instead of trying to determine the fault of Cain's offering, I would like to focus on the fact that for all of us, save Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary, sin desires us all but by the Word of God we can master it.

    Not to beat a dead horse, but all things occurring in this space-time continuum are not natural. It is a bad moral choice to kill, lie, fornicate, etc. It is a willful disobedience to God's design to masturbate, smoke cigarettes and steal from another. This is revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and present in the natural law. Other than repeating the socio/psycho/genetic causation, please be more specific insofar as the genetics. Again, my understanding is that no genetic code for homosexuality has yet to be discovered. Implied, yes, eureeka, no.

    Please provide your sources for the following statement, "…evidence- based research that  homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, explicable though not exhaustively, by entirely natural causation including a genetic component, early experiences in the developmental sense of that term…etc."

    Furthermore, you wrote in a reply to your post "matter and spirit": "That's why the written Word of God is so special: it works powerfully upon the matter of our brains, our hearts, in a special ways because it is preloaded, if your will, to do just that! For these words are the Word packed with the power of the Holy Spirit!"

    Is Saint Paul not the written Word of God?

    Romans 1:18-19,26-27

    The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    Leviticus 18:22 

    Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

    Jesus said:  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:17-20

  48. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Adam Stengel: Where have you been! Glad to have read your post. There are many good points you make and well stated. I would draw your attention to what I believe is a more chariatble and more accurate depiction of homosexuality, at tghe level of orientation and at the level of action. I am urging that the homosexuity be regarded not as a free choice made by a person,that is,this free person makes a choice to be homosexual or to act upon his urges as for example on chooses which tie to wear. The homosexual person is his/her homosexuality. It is this homosexual person who feels and acts in the world. Not a person who chooses to be, think, or act homosexually. This depiction should councel us to a greater sensitivity in the locutions we employ as we describe them and certsainly as we minister to them. But let's not forget that many homosexulas are recalitrant to treatment, so to speak. If treatment is equivalent to conversion and to negating their very person/being and self-identity then we are faced with a monumental task. Perhaps shining the beacon of truth on some few will adequately traet them. I believe thuis has been tried and is wanting. Later.        

  49. Guest Avatar
    Guest

        I would agree at least for those who are born with homosexual desires.  I still believe a large amount of those with homosexual desires are actually due to traumatic events in their lives and for those individuals overcoming these desires "could be" part of their healing process.  Once again though I do admit that many are born with these desires, and just like someone born with other non-normal/ideal status (ie. down syndrome) they should not feel ashamed for being what they are which is a child of God.  They can actually use this cross to great benefit for their spiritual lives just as a priest for their constant sacrifice.

     

    God Bless,

  50. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Oh, and just a quick addition rejecting their homosexual sexual activity is not rejecting their entire being.  I would like to think I am much more than just my heterosexual sexual activity.

     

    God Bless,

  51. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    LWALL and Steve,

    I must agree with Steve, I believe that you have been making too much of a person's sexuality LWALL. It is not the center and root of who we are. When a priest vows lifelong celibacy he is not denying very person/being and self-identity. People who think it is their person/being are disordered (sorry to use the D word again :^)

    Also, I think that the common definition of "unnatural" easily fits the use I put it to. While I am happy to use another term that might not be loaded the same, the dictionary does support my usage. By your usage "unnatural" would be synonymous with not belonging to the material world, intangible.

    May you both find peace and joy through our Lord, Jesus Christ.

    Yours in Christ,

    Mark

    The study of God is a study of Love

  52. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    For a tremendous personal story that demonstrates everything I said in my last post regarding conscience, go here:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487

  53. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    We are sexual beings. If you were to lose your sexuality suddenly tonight, say by mutilation, you would be a different person than now. Imaginary future trajectory of such a momentous happening would perhaps persuade you. And if you were told from the age of twelve that your entire life must be spent in active supperssion of your sexuality!!!! ( which encompasses a myriad of allied valuable human experiences). An aside to counter a previous post: please acknowledge that homosexual experience is not exclusively pure lust, titilation, and pleasure but relationship, intimacy, and committment at least for some. Nowback to the point : if you had to suppress all this for an entire lifetime, I venture to guess you would suffer some sense of profound loss or deprivation of your very person or being. The priest who vows chastity undergoes its rigors voluntarily, not as the prescribed antedote to a disordered set of desires, unless of cousre, we are talking about a homosexual priest. The two are quite different insatnces. As to the term natural, it makes good sense to regard the term just as I have urged. But you are correct to press my definition a bit. It would be more specific and accurate of me to have said that by "natural" I am intending a particular philosophical outlook best termed "naturalism" by which we can proffer explanations for phenomena without recourse to supernaturalistic causation e.g. by recourse to scientifc models, testsing hypothes, neurophysiology, and  neuroanatomic computational learning models… We need no invocation of other things such as evil, sin, or willfulness to explain the mere appearance of homosexuality in the species. Whether you regard it as sin involves an other-than naturalistic assertion. It is best not to refer to homosexuals as "unnatural" I believe as stated and defended.

  54. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    What is very frustrating about this and one reason I wanted to bring it to a close is that you refuse to acknowledge that we are all making a distinction between SSA and homosexual activity.  No one has said that people with SSA willfully choose their condition or that its mere presence in a person constitutes evil (as a deprivation it may be "an evil" but not in the moral sense). You seem to conveniently ignore that in your responses.

    You are constantly arguing against things that people did not say. I have never said that homosexual relationships did not or could not contain true elements of friendship, nor has anyone else. However that homosexual relationships are very often — usually in fact — voraciously lustful is a fact. Just look at the statistics on the number of partners.

    At the same time you are very determined to collapse a persons identity into his or her sexuality.  Sorry, I don't buy it — neither does the Church. A person with SSA is not closed off to friendship when he or she begins to live chastely, in fact many testify that that is when true friendship blossomed in their lives.

    It really is time for you give up this campaign.

  55. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear All:  It is really very simple.  The Church is not a watchdog that forces people to do what they don’t want to do, or vice versa, it is the instrument that God uses to reveal what is true.  Like a scientist who discovers the law of gravity.  It is not a law because the scientist says it is.  Nor does the scientist force us to obey it.  But if we challenge that law we run the risk of injury or death.  Similarly, God’s precepts are in reality also properties of the universe.  If we want to be happy in this life and the next, we simply obey these precepts and teach others to do likewise.  God bless all!

  56. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: I have given up this campaign already. I will however finish  responding to a few last good posts of Mike, Adam, Garrison perhaps later. For now, I disagree that I making arguments against straw men. Such has never been my tactic, and I abhore its use. A few comments on your last post,then a quick summary, and then good by: I shall move one paragraph at a time addressing  your post. (1).I think I do recognize the distinction being -when it is made -between SSA and act. However, I will argue that such a distinctiion is factitious, enjoys only ad hoc value, but confers much in the way of negative value. For, it is an ebtire person who possess either SSA or heteroSA. The qualities of intrinsically disordered, unnatural, and contrary to God's design pertain to the person of SSA prior to act. The qualities to not just suddenly materialize as a person "transitions" from SSA to act. While the Church may articulate a distinction, and there is a distinction between SSA and act just as there is a  distinction between lustful feelings an lustful acts pertaining to heteroSA, nonetheless I want to urge that the distinction between SSA and act is a factitious one. I will attempt to develop this claim. Just as heterosexual behavior and acts reflect the personhood and interiority of a given person, the same for persons of SSA. The act then issues forth from one's interior,metaphorically speaking and neurosynaptically, literally speaking. It is argumentative verbal expedience to pretend that a person of SSA or heteroSA is himself/herself NOT the living repository and locus of intrinsic disorder and unnaturalness, on the one hand, or intrinsic order and naturalness on the other. While there is an Aristotelian distinction between any potential and act, that metaphysical distinction between potential and act distinction does here not avoid the irremovable taint applied to SSA [ viewed as potential } and act; a qualification of potential prior to act as the Church has tried to avoid. {{{For it is for the homosexual that his being in the world is colored through and through with sometimes overt and othertimes muted colorations of his/her homoswexual nature. I am including aspects of person other than the sexual such as a proclivity to things more artistic, more feminine sensitivities in the case of a male, sometimes a moere feminine mode of speech and gesturing. Of course these are only generalizations but hold true in many cases.}} The point is, while making a verbal distinction betweem SSA and act serves the pastoral end of demarcatuing sin from not-yet-sin and/or of encouraging the homosexual not to lose hope since one can afterall simply remain chaste for one's entire life. The person of SSA, according to Church teaching, can not even act without sin! Act and sin then are inextricably bound, and both of these are inextricably bound to the person of SSA. This binding issues forth from who he is and thus insures that homosexual actions could be he only mode of possible sexuality for the person of SSA. This binding of SSA { potential} to an inevitable sin [act]pre-guarantees that a person of SSA is utterly incapable of uprightness. In this sense, the distinction between SSA and act loses its clarity, and the hoped for distinction gets quite fuzzy. For his sexual being and orientation importantly constitute his being-in-the- world. And yes, sexuality is very important. Do I really have to continue its defense on this post? Just read Christopher West 's development. It seems artificial at best and contrived at the worst to draw a distinctiion between SSA and act beyond that which commonsensically applies to potential/act. The person of SSA, just because he keenly knows that his inner self is not ultimately distinguishable from what he may bring forth in action in the world, I believe senses that the distinction is nominal. An illustration. A "mistake" Joe makes outside his marriage does not redound to Joe's very sexual being and personal identity. The other aspects of his personhood are not explicitly nor implicitly necesasarily involved in the mistake. But for the homosexual, and for a lifetime, any mistake made issues forth from his very identity as a person- in- the world. He is capacitated to nothing other than unnaturalness and disorder. His mistake then is not an occassional aberrant act superimposed upon an otherwise upright person as with Joe. For the person of SSA his acts issue forth as a continuance of his very person inside, from the very SSA person that he knows himself to be. This fatal binding of the person of SSA and act is persistent; it never goes away.   His person as SSA is then forevr pre-judged just because his person is capable only of expressinfgacts of sin pertaining to this important dimension of life. It is not a matter of merely resisting temptation at a given moment as with the example of Joe who's identity and orientation are already pre-blessed and who's occasional fall does not express a prejudged disorderd state. You,mkochan,implied as much in your comparison of the adulterer and the homosexual fornicator where you said at least the adulterer had a modicum of natural, ordered sex on his mind!  However, for the person of SSA, his identity and being-in-the-world can never be pre-blessed. He moves through the world always as his own self-reproach, with a mark upon his forehead.  His very self is "wrong" from the beginning. Yes, making the distinction between SSA and act serves a pastoral purpose and is theologically proper. But the many living and breathing persons of SSA hear in those words unnatural and intrinsically disordered a radical [ radical as in radix =at the root.] derogation and pre-judgement of their very person, a judgment cast even before a single act is commited.  For the phenomenon of sexual identity – hetero and  SSA – is a strongly, neurally encoded and neurally reinforced instantiated cognitive framework in one's brain. It largely constitutes ones self. And we know by other teachings of the Church that one's haert, feelings, beliefs, and  desires carry much moral weight. Even before act, lust in the heart, as the Lord tells us, is wrong. The person of SSA prior to act is likewse wrong, unnatural, and disordered. The distinction does little work. It attempts to srtike a conciliatory note but falls on deaf ears for the person of SSA.  Once again, we do not have to invoke sin or any super-natural causation in order to account for the mere appearance of SSA in the human species' neural framework. That has been my purpose all along for rejecting the locutuion "unnatural.", for we can mostly account for SSA's presence in natural terms. "Unnatural " becomes a super-added qualifier as it imports a judgment upon this otherwise natural phenomenon. The locutions, implications,message caught by the laity and culture at large, as well as the strategy aimed at "treatment" of these persons and the relative paucity of any widespread ministry, are all caught up in a mutual causal nexus that has placed the Church where she currently is re: homosexuality. Not in a good place. This SSA identity, which you naively believe to be so crisply distinguishable from act, is mostly recalcitrant to "treatment". { as an aside- the American Psych. Assc. has recognized this, and no longer lists homosexuality as a disease needing treament. Most treatable symptoms stem from various sources of social rejection, prejudice, and the anxiety of coming out. Same for American Pediatric Assc. You probably knew this.}  Just because SSA and heteroSA – as with all  humans values, beliefs, and affections – are the result and end- product of a very complex neural processing dynamic influenced by genetics, early learning, reinforcements and adjustments emerging at some prepubescent age as an instantiated nueural framework we call "one's sexual identity", this very identity or orientation necessarily entails, by virtue of its neural genesis, many other aspects of the person's value system including some a neural locus that sits there, so to speak, and says, " And here is one important part of me that makes life meaningful."  We all have these frameworks. Now ,I do not mean to "snow" you with medical/neurocomputational language. But I do wish to make the point as promised: that evidenced- based conclusions derived from much excellent work pertaining to the genesis and "causes" of human values, meanings, sexual orientation, learning, and morality make it quite clear that to attempt any facile distinction between the person of SSA and act is artificial. It seems to me that any such distinction is nominal only, ad hoc, and not reflective of the current science. This tight amalgamation of "orientation" and "personhood" applies to SSA and hetero alike of course. The decisive difference is that for the person of SSA his entire pre-act self is deemed unnatural, intrinsically disordered,etc. To claim that the above locutions apply only to the act is a species of verbal slight of hand or delusion. For heterosexuals, succumbing to temptation outside marriage is but a mistep, if you will, taken by a person who otherwise is walking upright. Again, mochochan's own example. On the other hand, a person of SSA acts out of his genuine being where there is no possibility that his acts could ever constitute a mere mis-step just because the person of SSA can not possibly, ever be regarded as walking uprightly.His very person inside which directs the steps he might take has no possibility other than taking disordered, unnatural, and sinful steps. In the above, note that I am addressing only the claim that there is a plausible and important distinction to be made between a perosn of SSa and act. It is the impossibility of any radical or incisive distinction being made that I am  advancing except as that allowed between any potent and act.   As to your comment about the voracious lust of homosexuals. I assume you see this as part and parcel of the sinful nature of homosexual acts. While this may be true, I suppose there are other causations at work. The general societal disapproval forces SSA persons into fromation of its own subculture wher conformity to mass generated values may shape behavior. Let's not forget that the statistics for unmarried young males and females now rivals any past generation in promiscuity and frequency of fornication. Thus homosexual behavior is not alone here. Also, there are homosexual relations which are monogomous.

  57. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    No, Lwal, you are incorrect.  Heterosexual acts in marriage, when done in purity of heart, reflect the personhood and interiority of a given person, true; but the same is NOT true for persons with SSA even in an exclusive relationship. You need a serious dose of JPII theology of the body. Just as fornication tells a lie with the body, so does homosexual activity.

    What you want to do is posit the interior profundity of the subjective experience as the basis for altering what the Church says about this.  All neural-biology and no soul. Of course all sin issues from our interior — like Jesus said, what goes into a man does not defile him, but rather what issues from his heart. But lies can issue from the heart.  The heart is deceptive, Jeremiah tells us.

    Yes, indeed SSA has a taint. And it will always have it, because that is the objective reality. But you are accepting a great deal of propaganda in this whole "queer eye" and ear, and nose, etc. in saying that the "whole being" is involved and irreparably so. If that were true, you would not have so many people who drift in and out of that life-style. You would not have any successful reparative experiences. You have simply bought part and parcel everything that people with SSA and an agenda are selling.

    People with SSA may pastorally need greater sensitivity to buliding up the conscience in the right way. So do women who have had abortions. But to say that the logical conclusion is that persons with SSA cannot act without sinning very directly contradicts what the Church teaches.

    It also, as I said before, collapses the person into his or her sexuality, which removes the thread of common humanity — the very thing that binds us to people with SSA as our brothers and sisters and binds us together across the male/female divide.

    Your defense on the multiplicity of partners so common among practicing homosexuals is simply laughable. For one thing homosexuals (especially in the entertainment business) have been in the forefront of the attempt to break down sexual mores in general — so that the horrendous statistics among heterosexual youth are evidence of the success of their vile campaign. Also the contraceptive mentality, which makes heterosexual sex resemble homosexual sex is much to blame for the increase in immorality among heterosexuals.

    The idea that if society approved of homosexuality they would not act in such a degrading fashion is refuted among homosexuals.  What percentage of them even were interested in "marriage" when it became available to them in certain jurisdictions? Also their statistics on infidelity within so-called exclusive relationships is astronomical. I don't mention these things to demonize them. Rather to point out something very obvious — that this is shame-based behavior (addiction) driven by a bad conscience. It is enslaving and unheatlthy — homosexuals are sicker and die earlier.  The Church in her wisdom and love desires something better for her children and so should we all.

    I am going to ask you to cease and desist from posting anymore on this topic in this comment space and all other comment spaces and forums on Catholic Exchange. We do not owe a forum to dissent from Church teaching regardless of how politely it is framed and you have been unfailingly polite. We welcome you to address other matters.  (But please — hit that enter key every couple of sentences or so!)

  58. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: Of course. I regret that you and probably others view me as dissenting from Church teaching. That is not my intent, nor do I see myself as having done so. Perhaps I have and can not se myself. May I say in parting that I do not endorse promiscuity at all, in any from. Nor do I endorse sexual relations outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony. Nor do I endorse homosexuality. I have endeavored to shed light on the multifactorial causation of homosexuality in the hope that this treatment might touch the heart and mind in such a way, ultimately, to soften and engender more compassion and understanding and thereby to assuage what I percieve – perhaps I am utterly alone in this perception – as a clustering of unintentional damaging attitudes and the relative poverty of ministry extended towards our estranged and suffering fellow saints. I have tried to locate this dissonace, at least in part, in certain specific theological locutions which drive this disharmony. It is only out of a deep faith in Christ and love of the Church that I have so strined to offered this too wordy set of responses. I hope and pray for genuine reconciliation within His Body. Thank you. Have a blessed Fourth of July. May His gift to this country be used by us all for His glory.    

  59. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, your endeavor, while noteworthy for the woefully ignorant, is accepted by a great majority of the Church and most assuredly by the Pope and the Magesterium. Disseminating the teaching throughout the rank and file, and having every member of the Church embrace the message with all their heart and mind is what proves to be difficult. The Gospel states that the Jews killed Christ and some, both lay and religious, used this fact to persecute many. So, can it be said of SSA or homosexuality that because the Church teaches that it is unnatural a person loses his dignity and becomes less than human and a target for sinful men? Of course not, and the Church has never taught in this light.

    Geographic and sociologic norms play a part in how much of what the Church teaches is received. Make no mistake about it, the Catholic Church has from the beginning taught the Good News, the tenets of faith that are echoed in our creed. Understanding how to lead the faithful throughout the ages and even more so now in this age of never ending technological breakthroughs has proven to be most difficult.

    All do not see the destructive nature of contraception and abortion. Paul VI, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, pointed to the destructive effects of contraception and abortion on mankind, marriage and the family, yet it is said that 80 percent of Catholic women contracept. At the time, a good number of theologians and men of the cloth disagreed with his assertion and fought against him. On this point, and it can only be said that by the Wisdom of God, which is the Spirit of Truth, he was absolutely correct.

    Which brings me to a conclusion that is not my own but one that I share with the faithful after much study, reflection, prayer and fasting. The Church has not and will not ever err in teaching the message that Jesus gave to the apostles. Understanding slavery, anarchy, capitalism, materialism, colonialism, nazism, etcetera has brought great trials and tribulations on members of the Body of Christ; both great and small in the eyes of man. But these things brought about by man, have never and will never change the unchangeable God. No sinner, whether they be priest or pope, mother or nun can by their actions change the saving action of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. The Church, as the Body of Christ, is incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals. Amen.

  60. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I realize I am coming late to this party, but I loved the article and the subsequent discussions and am hoping to enhance my understanding of this rather complex issue. I am hoping that a few of you may still have a second to follow up on this. Also if there is a better place for this discussion, please lead me there.

    I'd like to comment on lwall's premise that "Homosexulaity is not unnatural ; it appears in our finite continuum of natural events". My thought is that there are many things that appear in our finite continuum of natural events but we somehow see them differently. I think about all of the organic foods we see today. Don't all the chemicals used in the non-organic foods occur in that same continuum. How is it then we can make an amoral distinction that one of these food types is better than another? In fact the accepted vernacular for the organics is Natural Foods.

    Also, I have been told that there are several other behaviors (I'll avoid NAMBLA because I don't want to be accused of "reductio ad absurdum") like alcoholism that have been linked to a gentic predisposition. In this case, both the church and society have found that while this may fit lwall's definition of natural, it is considered wrong and great steps are made to prevent the actions of the predisposed and in fact work to help "our estranged and suffering fellow saints".

    I think that it is hard for someone to look at the "plumbing" of human beings, regardless of who they think made them or how they think they were made and determine that Mark's point is entire false because of the use of the word unnatural. Perhaps we can begin to refer to heterosexual behavior as Organic Sexuality.

    I would agree that we need to work hard to embrace all men and women as Christ did. We in our humanness fail miserably at this task at times. I know that Christ spent a great deal of time with sinners. My recollection is that he also used a phrase like "go and sin no more". I pray for the Charity I need to not just see this as a great debate, to grasp it in my head, but as a means to help some fellow sinners find the grace of final perseverance as I live out my baptismal promise to evangelize. Hopefully, without chasing them out of the Church.

  61. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Recon,

     

    Thank you for your kind words about the article. 

     

    I think that LWALL was too sensitive about stigmatizing homosexuals practicing or otherwise. To him, sexual orientation is fundamental to who you are and one has virtually no control over the exercise of it. To stigmatize it was to stigmatize the person himself. I.e. it was impossible to hate the sin without hating the sinner. It would then lead to self loathing in the Catholic homosexual resulting in a cure that was worse then the disease.

     

    Many other and I disagreed with him, that existence of avowed celibates proves that a happy life without direct sexual expression is very possible. That we did not think that at our core was our sexual identity but our arguments fell on deaf ears.

     

    He did retract his statement later that perhaps "unnatural" was a correct usage, but it should be avoided in deference to homosexuals' feelings.

     

    I do not know of anywhere else that this particular line of thought is going on. Perhaps you can start it at on the discussion forum.

     

    I liked your post, very well thought out.

     

    Yours in Christ,

     

    Mark

     

    The study of God is a study of Love

Leave a Reply