‘Theology as Survival,’ an interview with James Alison.
Just posted to the main page, Brett Salkeld’s conversation with Alison:
Salkeld: Your writing reminds me of Joseph Ratzinger’s, because both of you manage to say very traditional things in fresh ways. But on the question of homosexual acts, you disagree with the teaching of the church. Can you tell us what you believe about the morality of homosexual acts?
Alison: Thanks for the flattering comparison! But, to the area of our difference: I think you are mistaking me for a moral theologian, or someone who is professionally interested in sexual ethics. I’m honestly not sure that I’ve ever tried to talk as a theologian about “homosexual acts,” per se. My disagreement with the current teaching of the Roman Congregations is about what I consider to be their fundamentally flawed premise of the objectively disordered nature of the inclination. I don’t think it’s even worth beginning to talk about what acts might be appropriate before there is a recognition that we are talking about people whose way of being cannot properly be deduced from other people’s way of being. To do so would be like discussing different moves within a game of rugby while agreeing to hold the discussion under an enforced misapprehension that those moves are somehow defective forms of soccer playing.
Salkeld: How do you think your views line up with the tradition on this question?
Alison: I think I have quite traditional views on original sin, grace, and the real but difficult nature of we humans being able to learn something true about being human that we didn’t know before. And yet the consequences of this traditional view are really quite radical, in that they oblige us to face up to a question for which we have no precedent in the tradition. Given the most traditional Catholic understanding of the relationship between nature and grace, I wonder whether it is genuinely possible to defend the following thesis: “The comparatively recent human realization that there is no objective psychological or physiological disorder that is intrinsic to people whom we now call gay makes no difference to our understanding of the forms of flourishing to which such people are called by virtue of being what they are.” That seems to me to be the real question here: is it compatible with Catholic faith to claim that an authentic human discovery of this sort makes no difference to the shape of the flourishing of the people involved?
Moreover, it would seem to me that the recognition of the non-pathological nature of the minority variant in the human condition which you call homosexuality (I dislike the word myself) does inevitably alter the self-understanding of those of the majority condition, affecting how they understand the relationship between the unitive and the procreative dimensions of their loving. It would be very interesting indeed to hear a defense of it making no difference at all.
Read the rest right here.
Will this be published in the magazine?
James Alison challenges what he considers to be “the fundamentally flawed premise of the objectively disordered nature of the [homosexual] inclination.” In short, the homosexual inclination is not objectively disordered, as some have claimed it is.
Alison argues that “[t]he comparatively recent human realization that there is no objective psychological or physiological disorder that is intrinsic to people whom we now call gay.”
However, because this is only a comparatively recent human realization, then this realization will itself be questioned by conservatives who are suspicious of modernity and modern thought.
I remember that James Alison spoke at Boston College in 2003. His talk is still online at:
http://stream.bc.edu/ramgen/omc/frontrow/real/fr-2003-11-18-alison-220.rm
The introductions take about 5 minutes. He starts speaking at about 5:30
Catholic theologian and author James Alison keynotes a panel discussion on homosexuality and Catholicism. Respondents are Lisa Sowle Cahill, theology professor; Stephen Pope, theology professor; and James Keenan, S.J., Gasson Chair at Boston College and professor at the Weston Jesuit School of Theology.
Alison is introduced by Guilford Forbes, a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences at Boston College. Robert Daly, theology professor emeritus at Boston College, moderates.
My disagreement with the current teaching of the Roman Congregations is about what I consider to be their fundamentally flawed premise of the objectively disordered nature of the inclination. I don’t think it’s even worth beginning to talk about what acts might be appropriate before there is a recognition that we are talking about people whose way of being cannot properly be deduced from other people’s way of being.
Firstly, the “way of being” of a person with a same-sex attraction is to “be” a human person. Period. “Gayness” is not an ontological attribute, human personhood is.
Secondly, intrinsic to the human person is the body, as well as the soul. As a body, the human person is either male or female. And our very bodies, male or female, reveal how they are ordered. The male is ordered to joinder with the female. If we must be graphic about it, certain male parts are made to go with certain female body parts.
The male body, and thus the male person as an ontological matter, is not ordered to physical joinder with another male body. It is intrinsically disordered. So to be psychologically (or ideologically) inclined toward that which is by its very nature inconsistent with how our bodies are ordered, is also be be instrinsically disordered.
The fundamentally flawed premise is that we can choose our own reality here, choose our own truth about the human person, body and soul, male or female.
The argument seems to hinge on this “fact” :
I think that is a highly questionable assertion. How would one prove it ?
God Bless
You can read most of James Alison’s past articles at his website … http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/
I could be wrong, but I think he’s not basing his belief that the theology can change just on recent understandings of what it means to be gay, but also on what have been questionable interpretations of biblical passages on which current church views of gayness are said to be based. For instance, Fr. Alison has na article that discusses what Romans says … “But the Bible says…”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1
Bender –
What do you mean by “objectively disordered”? How can you tell such a disordeer when you find one? What are your criteria for them? And besides homosexuality, what is another objective disorder? (We could compare them and maybe discover what you mean by the phrase.
REmember, your feelings about it are subjective (all feelings are subjective realities). So your feelings are not the same thing as objective evidence.
Bender –
Your fundamental mistake is that you have a hidden assumption that doesn’t hold up, viz. that a body part can have only one function. WE know this is false. We use our hands for a myriad of functions, not only manipulative physical things in thousands of ways. but by expressing out thourhts with gestures.
How do you defend the one-function-per-body-part principle? It seems absolutely indefensible to me.
For James Alison fans, as am I, here are 3 worth watching/reading –
Australian Eureka Street video of James Alison on Homosexuality & Catholicism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Ou-4-LrhM&feature=player_embedded#at=98
Is it ethical to be Catholic? – Queer perspectives
http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng27.html
Finding a narrative: Homily for BBC Radio 4 Sunday Worship (29 April 2007) recorded at Most Holy Redeemer parish, San Francisco, 22 October 2006
http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng43.html
The male body, and thus the male person as an ontological matter, is not ordered to physical joinder with another male body. It is intrinsically disordered. So to be psychologically (or ideologically) inclined toward that which is by its very nature inconsistent with how our bodies are ordered, is also be be instrinsically disordered.
Bender,
How do you explain this about homosexual anal intercourse among giraffes?
Of course humans are not (necessarily) supposed to model themselves after animals, but how can you say that giraffes having anal intercourse are doing something “disordered”? We have heard the “tab A in slot B” theory of human sexuality many times, but—sticking with giraffes—tab A is routinely inserted into something other than slot B.
Please, please don’t say homosexual behavior in animals is the result of the Fall.
We use our hands for a myriad of functions, not only manipulative physical things in thousands of ways. but by expressing out thourhts with gestures.
Ann,
This fits in well with what Alison says about left-handedness. Indeed, it did used to be the case that only the right hand was considered the correct one for writing. My left-handed aunt’s horrible penmanship (she wrote with her right hand, as taught) was one result.
Ah, yes, the old “parts” discussion.
Time for a little Commonweal history:
” 1) Heterosexual reproduction yields greater genetic diversity than asexual reproduction
2) Greater genetic diversity increases the odds of creating a trait that confers an adaptive advantage
3) Species with greater adaptive advantages, by definition, survive more than those who do not
4) Therefore, over time, species that reproduce heterosexually will dominate nature
5) Such dominance is well established in nature before humans come on the scene
6) Therefore, it is not surprising that humans reproduce heterosexually
7) Because humans, as a species, reproduce heterosexually, they will be born with parts designed for heterosexual reproduction
8) The compatibility of parts indicates only a preference within the species for heterosexual reproduction
9) Claims that it indicates more than this (e.g., ontological maleness or femaleness, the propriety of human sexuality in marriage alone, etc.) do not follow from the natural compatibility of parts, and so must be defended on other grounds
10) The preference of the species for heterosexual reproduction says nothing about how sexuality might also be used (e.g., nonreproductive functions)
11) The preference of the species for heterosexual reproduction says nothing about how every member of the species should be sexual, only how a sufficient majority of the species should be sexual in order to maintain the adaptive advantages of heterosexual reproduction to the species
12) Compatibility of parts IN NO WAY provides an argument agains the possible goodness of non-heterosexual acts.
Heterosexuality is symbol of natural selection. It cannot be so understood without an understanding of genetics. Therefore, a fundamental change in our understanding of sexuality was made possible by the combination of genetics with natural selection theory. Prior to such understanding of sexuality, a kind of visual paradigm of sexuality would indeed make the compatibility of sexual organs seem like a rational grounds for making heterosexual reproductive normative. I suspect this is precisely what is at work in biblical considerations of human sexuality. I think the shift in perspective from a visual to a genetic understanding of sexuality is as significant as the shift from a geocentric understanding of the universe to a Copernican and heliocentric understanding of our place in the solar system and beyond. ”
(Viewpoint of Joe Pettit in Commonweal.com blog , February 19, 2008 http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1672#comments)
I hesitate to enter a discussion where so many people know so much, but, Bender, reading your argument, it struck me that it could equally well be applied to show that celibacy is intrinsically disordered. Namely:
“The male is ordered to joinder with the female. If we must be graphic about it, certain male parts are made to go with certain female body parts.
The male body, and thus the male person as an ontological matter, is not ordered to stay without physically joining with anyone. That is intrinsically disordered. So to be psychologically (or ideologically) inclined toward that [namely, celibacy] which is by its very nature inconsistent with how our bodies are ordered, is also be be instrinsically disordered.”
“8) The compatibility of parts indicates only a preference within the species for heterosexual reproduction”
Is there another kind?
An interesting post by Stephen Law, philosophy professor at Heythrope College …. “What’s wrong with gay sex” … http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex.html … that debinks various reasons given for believing same-sex sex to be wrong.
That sould be “debunks” :)
Mark Proska: Yes. Asexual reproduction is the earliest form of reproduction and still exists to this day in some species.
I quote Michael Lawler and Todd Salzman:
“Is it not reasonable to question whether the pyschoaffective, social and spiritual elements are intrinsically divided along masculine and femine lines and find completion only in male-female unity? Besides, genitalia, what “femine” affective elements does a man lack and what “masculine” affective elements does a woman lack? Some males are more nuturing than some females; some females are more dominent than some males; in many relationships we have both dominent people and nuturing people. In these cases, do we want to claim that these two people do not compliment each other? The furthe claim of intrinsic difference between male and femail, whereby the male and female find pyscho-affective, social and spiritual completion in one another only in marriage, is entirely unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence.
Further to claim that nonreproductive sexual acts are unnatural or against nature, one must prove that such acts by definition frustrate human well being or human flourishing.”
As Ann Chapman rightly asserted, “there are many functions and uses of a body part”. Where is the God-given mandate that we must use a body part for a specific purpose, or if not, why is it immoral? If God created us, right handed or left, gay or straight, and such an orientation is not one of “choice”, then are we not expected to live our life according to our natural inclinations, complementarity, well being and human flourishing in seeking what is good and avoiding what is evil? Why must our culturally defined and historic beliefs of the moral truth, not be brought to a clear and better understanding of the truth by new knowledge?
It is interesting to note that some of the most orthodox magisterial theologians (e.g., Janet Smith and Christopher West) do not find it intrinsically evil or immoral if a married heterosexual couple engages in anal sex as long as the act is not brought to completion.
Lastly, according to the Church, people with a same-sex attraction must practice celibacy. Is not celibacy a gift from God given to the very few? Is not celibacy something that people must voluntary desire and elect as a virtue? Is not forced or imposed celibacy “unnatural”, unreasonable and simply does not work? Is not imposed celibacy a form of stoic insensibility?
David,
Sows (female pigs) have found that an effective way to silence noisy piglets is to eat them (yes they eat their young). Does that fact change the morality of the same behavior in humans?
Ann,
One way I can use my hands is to squeeze things. I could, for example, squeeze another persons neck until I strangled them to death. That behavior is immoral. The behaviors of writing with a right hand or a left hand are both moral.
I think the fundamental truth behind Benders statement is that as Catholics we believe God built the world in such a way that humans can determine the truth about various behaviors. Its not easy because of the fall, but its possible. And its fairly easy for humans to realize that they reproduce sexually and know which organs are designed for reproduction. When we try to claim they are to be used for something else, we are able to build all sorts of arguments that seem to justify how we want to use them and why its good. But that does not change the plain facts staring us in the face.
Joe–
Yes, except at Step 6) it was clear we had progressed to humans. Then in Step 8) we revert back to plants. I don’t think an argument that same-sex marriage is perfectly natural for plants is on anyone’s radar screen.
Bruce,
Given evolution, the only conclusion to be drawn about the way things are is that this is what was sucessful in allowing survival …. there’s no moral subtext unless you want to believe in some version of intelligent design, and I don’t think even the pope believes in that.
“Secondly, intrinsic to the human person is the body, as well as the soul. As a body, the human person is either male or female. And our very bodies, male or female, reveal how they are. The male is ordered to joinder with the female. If we must be graphic about it, certain male parts are made to go with certain female body parts.”
So the body too has “ontological” status — Bender’s preceding paragraph gave the impression that only personhood counted as ontological.
But Bender’s view of the body is amazingly mechanistic and materialistic. The lived body is a seat of many moods, feelings, forces, apprehensions, and foremost among them is one’s sexual disposition. One of Nietzsche’ more illuminating remarks was that “the type and degree of a person’s sexuality colors even the highest achievements of their spirit”. Thus one’s sexual disposition is ontological as well, since it is a fundamental aspect of one’s corporeality, which we have already established to be ontological. (Unless you understand being – the on of ontology – in purely materialistic terms, as Bender seems to, forgetting that human being is spiritual through and through, even in it most graphic bodily functions.)
Sows (female pigs) have found that an effective way to silence noisy piglets is to eat them (yes they eat their young). Does that fact change the morality of the same behavior in humans?
Bruce,
The question is not whether certain animal behaviors, if done by humans, would be immoral. There are a great many that would be. The question is whether common instinctual animal behavior can be “intrinsically disordered.” Certainly individual animals could have neurological, genetic, or other disorders that caused them to behave in “unnatural” and self-destructive ways. But can animal instincts themselves be “disordered”?
And its fairly easy for humans to realize that they reproduce sexually and know which organs are designed for reproduction. When we try to claim they are to be used for something else . . . .
Are you saying men shouldn’t urinate?
Mark: I confess I have no idea what your comment about plants means.
Joe–
Yeah, I guess my point was a bit obscure. The argument had been made that asexual reproduction exists in the universe, that humans reproduce sexually, therefore, that must be only our “preferred” form of reproduction. However, human beings do not have any other way of reproducing–there is no option; there is no preference,
Mark: No one is suggesting that they will ever do otherwise.
David,
I think you answered your own question by describing them as disorders:
Certainly individual animals could have neurological, genetic, or other disorders that caused them to behave in “unnatural” and self-destructive ways.
Sure, animal behaviors can be intrinsically disordered. Since they are made of matter just like humans, it is put together in a non-perfect fashion. Its just that there is no moral culpability.
Crystal, Human behavior is all about morals, which also has an impact on survival.
Sure, animal behaviors can be intrinsically disordered
Bruce,
Behaviors of individual animals can be “intrinsically disordered.” For example, when I was a kid, my father raised chickens, and once a baby chick hatched that only walked backwards. In the wild (and in fact, even in captivity), it had no chance of survival.
HOWEVER . . . my point is that I don’t think instinctual behavior can be intrinsically disordered. The concept doesn’t make any sense. Instinctual behavior can’t evolve, it seems to me, to be “against nature.” So if half of all giraffes engage in homosexual behavior, it must at least be neutral behavior and almost certainly it is adaptive. If animal sexual behavior is adaptive, serves a purpose, and benefits the species, it makes no sense to me to say it is against nature or is “intrinsically disordered.” That does not mean it is moral if human beings doe it, but it seems to me to mean that even if it is not moral, it is not “intrinsically disordered.”
I knew this thread would quickly degenerate into simplistic biologism.
Oy.
Joe–
Well, someone is suggesting that it is “only a preference.” If it could never be otherwise, isn’t that suggestion patently false?
Mark: That someone was probably me in that long ago written piece re-posted by Jimmy Mac (all of which I still affirm, without all of the typos). However, by “preference” I meant that evolution selects heterosexual reproduction because of its adaptive advantages at genetic level. Thus, nature seems to “prefer” heterosexual reproduction in the sense that it evolved that way.
Our species reproduces heterosexually because millions and millions of years of biological ancestors of our species did so. No other reason.
No human being is able to prefer asexual reproduction, but I suppose cloning would come close.
Joe–
Ah, I see now. But if nature prefers heterosexual reproduction (and it seems it does), isn’t it possible that an intelligent being designed it that way, with evolution being the means to implement the design?
Mark does this mean your an “intelligent design?” arguer?
What do you think about secondary causality???
Mark: There is nothing particularly intelligent about evolution and so what was needed to end up with heterosexuality. The evolutionary algorithm is very basic: 1) differentiate 2) select 3) amplify. The unit of differentiation, selection, and amplification is genetic code. It turns out that all information ecosystems (biological, economic, or otherwise) are guided non-intelligently by this simple algorithm.
“And its fairly easy for humans to realize that they reproduce sexually and know which organs are designed for reproduction. When we try to claim they are to be used for something else, we are able to build all sorts of arguments that seem to justify how we want to use them and why its good. But that does not change the plain facts staring us in the face.”
Bruce —
Oh, for HEaven’s sake, of course it’s obvious that genitals are for reproduction. Nobody contests that. The question at hand, however, is: are those human body parts for anything else?
You have not offered one reason for saying they are that but nothing else. You just keep repeating ‘it’s obvious”. Well, it isn’t obvious why there shouldn’t be more than one use for those parts. So what’s your answer? What are your obvious reasons?
In fact, the Church recognizes that there is also the conjugal benefits, so apparently those parts ARE for more than one purpose.
The basic question is: may the operation of those parts be adjusted when it is unwise to have child? I say Yes, because in that case *the end of the parts has been seen to be forbidden”. Yes, trying to have a child when the wife is seriously ill would be downright evil. In other cases there are less weighty reasons, but the Church does admit some. See HV.
So if the usual end of conceiving a child is NOT a good one, then what shall we say about the means? YOu’ll remember from your metaphysics class that the value of a means is determined by its relationship to the value of a end — when its end (conception in this case) is bad then the means has lost its value as means to conception.
In the case of it being a bad idea to have a child, then thee procreative end is cancelled at least for a while, and the means, no longer being a moral means, need not be kept in its original state. That is, the body parts *may* be altered so they can serve the other purpose of sex, the conjugal benefits.
YOu say our arguments are defective. Now say WHY. (I’m going to keep after you about this, so you might as well give it a shot.) And don’t tell me to read JP II and Benedict. I already have.
“it is put together in a non-perfect fashion.”
Bruce –
About these non-perfect animals. I grant you that a person who cannot have a child is not a perfect human being — his or her body does not meet the requirements, or does not meet the requirements with a specific person or specifiic kind of person. But you do admit, do you not, that infertile women may marry? And why is that? Because it is better to make her as good as she can be EVEN IF NOT PERFECT. Being a loving wife with no children is better than being neither a loving wife or mother.
Infertile people *prove* by their very being that that is the way their Creator wants them. (You really can’t get around this one, unless you want to say we were not created by a just and loving God.)
Ann,
I fear the logic of your argument plays into hands of those who see same-sex relations as disordered. By granting that a fertile body is more humanly perfect, you open the door to those who insist that sexuality SHOULD be between a man and a woman only and that it should always be open to reproduction (proper sexuality would pursue its perfection). Such individuals are happy to grant that infertile women can marry and be lovingingly sexual. They are doing the best they can with a defective body. To make the unmarried woman analogous to those engaged in same-sex activity is to suggest either that they have defective bodies or that they are deliberately choosing not to pursue proper sexuality when they have the option of doing so (an option the infertile woman does not have).
Moreover, I do not think God makes people infertile any more than I think God makes people gay or not gay. I think nature makes people infertile and I think it probably has a lot to do with our sexual orientation. God calls forth goodness from creation. The issue at hand is whether or not human sexuality must be hetero in order to be good. I see no argument so far that would explain why it must be.
Bob–Well, I do believe there is a God, he’s pretty intelligent, and he did design the world. Not sure if that answers your question. What is secondary causality?
Joe–You seem pretty sure in your belief (“…it turns out…”) about the impossibility of an intelligent designer behind evolution–I think more sure than I am in my belief that there is one! Michael Behe has a different view on evolution, and makes a pretty convincing case that random incremental improvements could not have produced the irreducibly complex goings-on we now know obtain within an individual cell. It’s a pretty simple insight, but with immense ramifications.
Much of what we have learned about marriage and procreation, about human sexuality, has some basis in the Creation Story. God made man, then woman because man should not be alone. After the Fall, God casted both man and woman out of Paradise and told them to go forth and multiple. Only a man and a woman can procreate, but does this mean that a couple who cannot procreate (for any number of reasons) represents a “disorder” or an immoral union? There is no compelling argument or scientific knowledge we know of that contends this. Heterosexual couples that cannot have children, or do not want children for good reasons, are able to marry in a Church. Why would a homosexual couple who want to adopt children be forbidden to marry in a Church?
To procreate is one end of marriage, but this does not mean if procreation is not possible, or not wanted for good reasons, the marriage or the spouses are disordered or immoral If homosexuality or same-sex attraction is not a “chosen” preference but intrinsic to the created human, then where is the evil or unnatural distortion to such orientation? If God created nature and nature is good, there may be distorted and unnaturalness in nature, but to date no scientific data has concluded that humans with a same-sex attraction fall into this category.
We have culturally and socially defined what is normal and natural, and we are highly influenced to think that way. At one time, many people who are right handed, thought that being left handed was an unnatural human quality.
If being gay or lesbian is not evil, why is their natural inclination evil? Why is a voluntary human consentual act between same sex couples, that does not harm either person or their neighbor, and is non-procreative, intrinsically evil? What is wrong with a same sex couple, who are in a marriage or same sex union, not be able to adopt children, and be responsible parents?
The real questions are:
1. Can two people with a same sex attraction, be united in a marriage where there is unconditional love and fidelity?
2. Is the only salvation for people with same sex attraction, life-long celibacy?
3. Is imposed celibacy natural or an unreasonable requirement that will only work for the very few? After all, not everyone who wants to become a priest is blessed by God with the virtuous gift of celibacy.
4. Would people with a same sex attraction be classified as “habitual sinners” (like contraceptive couples are called)? If so, why are people with a same sex attraction or people who are divorced and remarried, both habitual sinners, not given absolution by the principle of gradualnesss offered to other habitual sinners such as contraceptive couples? Is this not contradictory?
Mark: Behe’s arguments have been decisively defeated (flagellum, eye, clotting cascade, etc.), in no small measure by what we have learned at the genetic level regarding evolution. Francis Collins, former head of the human genome project, and an evangelical Christian, agrees with this conclusion.
My point was not to express certainty about anything other than the very simplicity of evolution. Other things, including God’s relation to the world, are not not so obvious. But, I do have faith!
Joe–
I cannot agree that Behe’s arguments have been defeated, decisively or otherwise. You may find this article interesting:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-08-032-f
Apologies if subscription is required.
Keep the Faith!
. “By granting that a fertile body is more humanly perfect, you open the door to those who insist that sexuality SHOULD be between a man and a woman only and that it should always be open to reproduction (proper sexuality would pursue its perfection). ”
Joe P. ==
What others think is not a premise in my argument. If the truth is that infertility is a lack, then an infertile body is an imperfect one. And if you don’t think infertility is a lack, ask any women who is infertile and she’ll let you know.
No, gay bodies are not defective, but the individual gays do lack the psychological impetus that makes procreation possible — they don’t want a female spouse. NOt that gay people don’t want children. The problem is that they want children with spouses whom they cannot produce a child.
Is this any reason to deny them the other benefits of marriage? I say No.
As to unmarried women, as an 81 year old spinster I think I can speak with some authority. An unmarried life is an imperfect one in some important ways. I’d be a total fool and liar to deny it.
Your apparent assumption that we ought to change our minds because few agree with us has nothing to do with rationality, or, ultimately, truth. That’s tribal thinking, Joe, and to be avoided like the plague.
Ann,
I think you are a bullwark of reason and a real heavy lifter on dotCommonweal. I say that in preparation for noting that I simply do not understand your comments.
One last thought. I do not know that perfection and imperfection are appropriate terms to be applied to things like bodies because I do not think there is a predetermined form for what they should have. Rather, they do have this or that. Most human bodies have the capacity to participate in procreation. Having this capacity does not make them more perfect. To note the lack of the capacity does not make a body less perfect, it merely notes the lack and that lack may be regrettable by many who experience it.
Hopefully, I will figure out your argument. Please give my slow brain time.
Michael Barber i@ 3:45 asked:
“Can two people with a same sex attraction, be united in a marriage where there is unconditional love and fidelity? ”
As much as two people with an opposite-sex attraction can. And, from the longevity of the couples I know (mine will hit 40 in May), BETTER in many, many cases. My best heterosexual friends bitterly ended their marriage after 35 years, 30 of which were absolutely vicious.
Joe P. –
Sorry I didn’t make myself clearer. Don’t know how to.
One last point anyway — just because a person lacks the potentials to be the best in everyway, that does not mean he/she is less valuable than others. No one has all perfect potential, and even if someone did, he/she couldn’t exercise them all. So human life is a matter of discovering what we can do, then choosing about our strengths or the potentials that make us happy. But there will always be something we’d have liked or loved that we did not do. IT”s the human condition.
It follows of course that gay people have potentials worth fulfilling, thereby making their lives and the lives of others worthwhile, and to consider them inferior people is gross ignorance.
Ann: I agree with you.
Natual law represents the rational creature’s dstinctive mode of participating in God’s providence. This implies that natural law is intrinsically oriented toward the attainment of the agent’s final end, their individual perfection. God’s providential care is expressed in and through the operation of the inclinations proper to each kind or creature. If the inclinations are to function to promote the agent’s true good, they must be directed toward action which are the virtues. The virtues do not formulate norms. They are simply dispositions which tend to point to an orientation to the human good and are expected to promote individual or communal well-being. Is it a certainly that same sex couples can only attain their final end and individual perfection and well-being by practicing celibacy?
The exercising of the virtues of fortitude and temperance do not call for insensibility, but prudent reasoning in striving for the good according to one’s inclinations. Thus the answer to people with a same sex attraction cannot be imposed celibacy. Who among us would call this reasonable?
We are told by the Church that we must abide by legalistic universal codes of behavior (e.g. homosexuality is immoral because semen must be placed in its proper receptical, etc). However, morality, how to live a moral life, cannot be deducted from universal codes. A series of universal codes do not start to tell us about a fully-developed livable morality.
It may be possible to have a set of a priori definitions of murder, stealing, betrayal etc, that could lead to a series of deductive steps with a specific end. However, we do not have such definitions that can answer the detail of everyday life. The answer to the moral question is the moral method which is dependent on interpretation. Only when the conversation becomes continuous and detailed that we can reach a judgment about culture, action, human goodness and values. This also means answering the question about the morality of same sex couples.
There can be elaborations on codes of behavior, and a certain deduction, but minimalistic codes are not specific enough to formulate universals because there are variations in detail. Thus our understanding of morality becomes plural and only in specific circumstances, are norms the absolute moral truth. No one wants to sacrifice their well-being to universal moral absolutes that do not take into consideration human experience. This is why the doctrine of contraception is not received. Can we not question the doctrine of human sexuality or are we to believe that our undersanding of the moral truth is not progressive?
If being gay or lesbian is not evil, why is their natural inclination evil?
Ann, I dont think the inclination is evil, its following through on that inclination which results in the behavior that is evil. We all have inclinations that lead to evil behavior. I love to drink; but a failure to limit the drinking is bad behavior in my view. My brother used to hit people all the time; that was his inclination. He had to learn to control it. I think homosexual behavior falls in the same category and I cant fathom logical reasons why people think otherwise. It seems that our society is treating sex as a god and therefore virtually any type of sexual behavior must be good. One-night-stands, friends-with-benefits, cohabitation, homosexuality, threesomes, etc, all seem to fit into this category.
Infertile people *prove* by their very being that that is the way their Creator wants them
I completely disagree with your statement above. It definitely does not prove that the Creator wants them that way. All it proves is how they actually are. I think the simple Catholic explanation would be that because of the fall all of us are made with defects.
Well, it isn’t obvious why there shouldn’t be more than one use for those parts
Of course there can be more than one use for the parts. We see it everyday. HV does not say that the parts cannot be used for homosexual sex, its says its not moral to do so. The question isn’t can but should. Its the same with abortion. We can abort fetus’s but should we? The fact that we can do something never touches the question of should. Should requires an outside judgment.
One thing that bother me about this whole debate is the underlying premise that we are ‘progressing’ to a better world. Its as though we believe that homosexuality hasnt existed throughout human history which of course it has. But now we think ‘this time its different’ because we are so much smarter. Maybe, but my recent experience with those statements in the dot-com and real estate booms was that not only was it false, but the downside was enormous. (I work in the financial markets so thats why I use those examples).
I always remember my lawyer-uncle making this statement in jest: motherhood is a certainty but fatherhood is only a probability. Marriage laws eliminated this problem: your wife had a baby, you were the father. It is good for both the mother and the child. There is even a name for husbands who were taken advantage in this area by their wives: cuckold. Gay marriage creates this problem since by definition, the gay couple needs a third party to have children other than through adoption. And what about the children? They have a mother and a father, why shouldnt they know them and be raised by them. There maybe circumstances where that isnt best, but should we actively foster those situations. I think not.
Bruce –
Was your post addressed to me (Ann Olivier)? If so you have misinterpreted what I said completely.
I’m STILL waiting for an anti-homosexual practice person to actually give some reason — ANY reason — that it is wrong. Simply saying “it is evil” is not a rational response — it just repeats what you said yesterday, and the day before, and the week before when you also didn’t give any reasons.
When will conservatives learn that subjective reactions to objective facts are not evidence which describes the facts. You might tell me that murder is wrong because it’s horrible, but horror is not a moral category, Murder is NOT wrong because it HORRIFIES YOU, but because someonee else has been deprived of life unjustly, which is the ultimate deprivation of the possibility of flourishing.
In the case of homosexuality, it is not wrong because many people are horrified by it. If it is wrong, there must be some reason — some destructive character it has, or there must be some way it prevents a necessary good — it must prevent human flourishing.
Yes, it’s all a matter of human flourishing — that’s what natural law is ALL about. And until you present some evidence that shows that homosexual behavior always prevents human flourishing , your “criticism” does not have a moral leg to stand on. If you’re going to talk about Catholic morality, you MUST talk natural law, and that requires you to look at the facts of human experience to discover what makes people flourish. And, yes, that’s true for the Catholic moral theologians too. They must give reasons, and some are indeed starting to see some problems with the old Church teachings.
So what’s YOUR evidence? How does homosexual behavior prevent human flourishing?
I’m not asking for reasons from Revelation. Passages in Revelation about homosexual behavior are being contested these days, so let’s stick with non-religious experience.
(I really don’t expect an answer, but thought I’d try anyway. a
Ann, Here is a definition of Natural Law. You will notice the absence of ‘flourish’ in the definition. Flourish is a result of following natural law but not natural law itself.
the natural law perspective says that “True law is right reason in agreement with nature,” as Cicero put it
Natural law says that males and females are made complementary for a reason. Natural law says that body parts are designed for purpose. Children come from a mother and a father and deserve to know both. Humans flourish as part of a natural family. All these are reasons for a natural heterosexual family. And because they are positive for natural heterosexual family, they are necessarily negative for homosexual relationships because same-sex relationships can never produce a natural family. We are trying to make what are more properly called friendships into family-sexual relationships. We all know they are different but willfully want to pretend they are not.
Now ‘What about infertile couples?” The answer is that they are naturally able so far as their abilities allow. One example, infertility might result because the woman’s uterus wont allow the embryo to implant. So they can create a family, but it never fully develops. So even women in menopause can carry the process as far as it will go, but cant complete it because they no longer produce eggs. But same-sex relationships have zero ability from the start. Thats a fundamental natural difference.
You can read this much more cogent and intellectual article.
http://www.shms.edu/aodonline-sqlimages/shms/faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/MoralPhilosophy/ThomisticNaturalLaw.pdf
The other comment I would make is God is unchanging. Like Benedict, I dont believe God would allow his church to misdirect humanity for 2000 years and then change the rules. That would be the antithesis of love regardless of how God ultimately judges people. But obviously that requires a faith in the institutional church and the Holy Spirit acting through it.
Bruce:
Cicero believed the natural law was identically the same in all times and places and unalterable, as to admit of not exceptions. However, Cicero’s interpretation is only one alternative and it does not fit with a pure philosophical approach or other alternative approaches. One such alternative if the Ordinary Gloss. The Gloss makes clear that Cicero’s remarks of the natural law, can be in terms of universality of a capacity or power, rather than a universallly accessible set of moral rules.
The natural law does not provide us with a system of ethical norms which are both detailed enough to be practical and compelling to all rational and well-disposed persons.
Human flourishing means flourishing to an end, our end in God. It means to strive to the good, to human perfection, happiness, making good choices, loving God and neighbor. There are many fundamental human goods, but a theory of human goods, like Grisez’s New Natual Law Theory, is controversial and many magisterial theologians criticize it. The NNLT fails to establish that such choices, same sex unions, do in fact manifest a negative impact on the human person, human relationships and human fulfillment. It fails to do so because it lacks a developed , personalist anthropology, and the anthropology it has developed is classicist; it emphasizes the biological over the persona dimensions of the sexual human person. To be truly human, reasonable and moral, a sexual act must be integrated with the whole self, biologically, personally, relationally, phychologically, emotionally and spiritually. The NNLT does not integrate sexual orientation into its sexual anthropology. It is reasonable to question whether the psychoaffective, social and spirtual elements are intrinsically divided along male and female lines and find completion only in the male-female unity. Besides genitalia, what feminine affective elements does a man lack and what masculine afffective elements does a woman lack?
Certainly marriage, procreation, the love and rearing of children is a human good. But, the absence of children in marriage for any reason, does not negate the achievement of one’s salvation.
There are many reasons couples do not want children. Some may have lost a child in pregnancy and do not want the physical and psychological trama. Other women’s lives may be threatened by a pregnancy, while others want to wait to their late thirty’s to make up their mind, only to face other pressures. Perhaps they made a misake and should have had children in their twenty’s when a decision may have been easier. Many couples adopt children. So can same-sex couples. Same sex couples can be faithful to themselves and love God and neighbor. They can have fidelity in marriage. What distinquishes your moral thinking is that marrried couples must be able to have the ability to bear children “naturally”. If couples do not have this ability, does not make their relationship evil and immoral. If there are exceptions to heterosexual couples in not wanting or having children, then your argument about homosexual couples losses much of your seeming rational argument. What it boils down to is that only a male and female can marry because of the biological element of sexal complementarity. The personal element of sexual complemetarity is irrelavent or subordinate.
As mentioned earlier, the question is: Can a same-sex couple have a loving relationship, adopt and rear children as responsible parents, do no harm to themselves and neighbor, honor fidelity in a marriage, and be pleasing to God?
Michael,
You are just espousing the nouveau view of marriage. The Catholic ideal of marriage is a man and wife joined together as one for life, open and willing to accepting children. Thats the center line in the tennis court. Through no fault divorce, contraception, remarriage, cohabitation etc we have now moved to where our face is pressed against the fence looking outward and we are wondering why not gays too. We arent anywhere near the court, let alone center court, anymore.
The basic problem with your formulation of the question is that it asks ‘our end in God’. We cant be pleasing to God unless we are trying to fulfill God’s will eg ‘Thy will be done on earth…’ from the Our Father. So I think question needs to be the other way around. Further, I dont believe that a same-sex couple can do no harm to others; simply by their relationship they are pointing other people in the wrong direction.
I cant understand how you can possibly even ask this question: what feminine affective elements does a man lack and what masculine affective elements does a woman lack? My mother was completely different from my father though they both loved me. All I had to do was interact with them to realize they are different. You know this to be true as well.
And since all children have a father and a mother, how can anyone be so self-centered to explicitly deny them that reality? Further, why should children be taught an outright lie: you have two mommies or you have two daddies.
I find this troubling as well: The Gloss makes clear that Cicero’s remarks of the natural law, can be in terms of universality of a capacity or power, rather than a universallly accessible set of moral rules. We all have demonstrably different capacities; I’m no Augustine or Aristotle or probably even a Barberi. But I do think we all have a much more equal chance of determining moral behavior, even if it involves relying on others. Others cant give us an equal capacity but they can help us have an equal chance at getting the rules right.
So the bottom line is that I think as humans the more we ponder the question of same-sex marriage looking at it from all angles and arguing each position the more likely we are to become confused and get the wrong answer when the right answer has been staring us in the face the entire time.
I found this lecture on natural law enlightening:
http://www.shms.edu/aodonline-sqlimages/shms/faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/InternationalCatholicUniversity/Lec1NatLaw.pdf
Bruce –
Do read Alasdair MacIntosh’s “After Virtue”. It is largely about how the notion of flourishing is central to natural law theory of Aristotle and Thomas. Things are said to “flourish” when they achieve their ends, and the notion of final causality is central to an A-T natural law theory. MacIntyre’s book had great sales, even out of academe. Writes beautifully.
I agree with your defense of marriage. But that’s not what I’m looking for. My question is not “what is right with marriage?”, it’s “what’s wrong with homosexual marriage?”
Saying that they can never produce a hetero marriage is like objecting to a steak because it can never replace an apple pie. Doesn’t hold. Not a reason having anything to do with the merits (or demerits) of homosexual behavior, which Is what I’m asking about.
Your last point — God wouldn’t allow us to be fooled that long — Huh?? Think of all the years he has allowed slavery to be though right. Besides, that does not address my question.
Bruce:
With respect, your argument is based on the Church’s teaching, without remainder. It is not based on any theological, philosophical or anthropological argument. My point is that the Church’s teaching emphasizes the biological over the personal and relational. The Church teaches that man and women must come together to reproduce in order that they may come together to complete each other. What is about the male and female that needs completion? What elements are lacking in each that their marriage would complete, other than biological reproduction?
The Church’s teaching about human sexuality is based on ontological speculation about the Genesis story and symbolism. Jesus’s love for the Church is one and inseparable; spouses are a unity of one and their union in marriage is inseparable; the marital act has two inseparable meanings; to break the inseparable meaning of sexual intercourse in marriage is an offense against Divine Law. Symbolism is a weak moral theory and “no one knows God’s procreative plan”.
I judge not and there is nothing wrong with a person’s faith in all Church teachings. However, there is a profound disagreement among most theologians, the laity and many bishops that many sexual ethical teachings of the Church are the absolute moral truth. There is compelling and reasonable theological, philosophical, ontological and anthropological arguments that many of these teachings should not be a moral absolute, without remainder. There are too many complex cases where the application of Church teachings are unreasonable and ignore the suffering, conflict and moral dillemma of human experience. IMO, many of the Church’s teachings ignore the “ethical context”. The issue is not that the proclaimed moral absolute must attest to an exception (which is contradictory), but that the exception is not the norm but the ethical context that the norm relates. A young woman with 3 children whose life is threatened by another pregnancy is told that sterilization or taking the pill is immoral. She must practice risky PC or celibacy. The hierarchy of values is turned upside down in this case because the prudent decision to safe-guard one’s life is less important or morally irrelevant than the decision to ensure that every marital act has a procreative meaning. Who among us would dispute this?
What we have is a hierarchy who will defend Church teachings because of an exaggerated fear that to admit to any error, to any dimnishment of moral certainty, is to weaken the authority of the magisterium. Yet, they ignore the facts that slavery was permissible for centuries but reformed, freedom of religion was outlawed and punishable by torture and death (the inquistion) but reformed, the ends of marriage were never a constant teaching of the church (it changed many times over the centuries), and capital punishment was moral, but is now being considered an offense against God. Today, deportation is said to be intrinsically evil. Yet, who among use would deny the reasonability of deporting an illegal alien who committed a felony?
According the the Church, a same sex couple cannot gain salvation. They are condemned to hell.
Ann,
Two comments
1) Whats right with marriage defines what’s wrong with same-sex marriage. They are obviously not the same so if one is right the other cannot be. Whatever one is, the other has to be something else. Same-sex can be something but it cant be marriage.
2) I hear you on the slavery issue. I think they are different in the following respect. If I’m the ultimate judge and the people I charged with guiding told you it was ok to do something against my will, that I can forgive. And I can be happy if you actually followed my will. But something feels terribly wrong to me if they were telling you not to do something because its against my will and that later turns that you should have been doing it. So if you followed their advice, I have to forgive and if you didnt follow it, I’m not sure I’m supposed to be happy. Particularly, when I think about Christ preaching humility. When I write this it doesnt seem as clear as I feel it. The first instance seems like progress while the later seems just plain cruel.
Ann,
One thought to my second comment. In the first instance, you a not being told you have to do something, so not doing it is ok. In other words, you are not ignore the guidance to do my will. In the second instance, you are. Thats why i feel they are different.
Michael, with all due respect, the Church’s teaching is certainly based on theological, philosophical and anthropological arguments. And it does not emphasize the biological over the relational or personal. Cura Personalis, care of the whole person, body and soul.
I hear you on your concern about the ethical context and realize its very difficult. One perfect example is rape and abortion. Rape is a horrible crime and we all want to ease the victim’s pain as much as possible. But, (many may hate this) what about the child? He is completely innocent, as innocent as any other child. Perhaps we are thinking about the crime wrongly. Perhaps the crime is not just the actual sex but also the ensuing 9 months of agony for the mother. I always remember 2 wrongs dont make a right. And the philosophy’s that try to balance one against the other fail because in the above example, an abortion doesnt make the rape go away or even feel better.
You bring up many examples, but let me address just this one.
Today, deportation is said to be intrinsically evil. Yet, who among use would deny the reasonability of deporting an illegal alien who committed a felony?
I for one, would disagree. To me, every human has the unalienable right to their 3 square feet of the earth. In the same way that they have the right to life, they should have the right to live it where they want. If the crime warrants jail, then so be it. But to deport them, no way.
“1) Whats right with marriage defines what’s wrong with same-sex marriage. They are obviously not the same so if one is right the other cannot be. Whatever one is, the other has to be something else. Same-sex can be something but it cant be marriage.”
Oh come on, Bruce! You don’t really mean this, do you? Just because two things are different it doesn’t make one of them bad. Singing is different from dancing. Does that make dancing evil?
Your problem, I think, is that you keep classifying homosexual union as a sub-set of hetero unions. If that’s what they were, then, Yes, they would be intrinsically bad hetero unions. But they’re not hetero unions, they are just extremely like them in important ways.
An analoous example. Both Ford pick-ups and Ferraris are vehicles of some sort. Ferraris are defined by their great pick-up, ability to move extremely fast, and their cool looking design. The Ford pick-ups also have great pick-up, but they aren’t as fast as the Ferraris and look quite stodgy. Does that make them bad vehicles? No. Of their *own SPECIFIC kind” (i.e., trucks) they are fine vehicles.
There is also this big semantic problem here — the meaning of “marriage”. Heteros usually include “being direted towards children” as part of their definition. That is, they think that being ordered to children is an *essential part* of what they’re talking about when they use the word “marriage”. But, as always, it is not what things are *called* which is the standard against which they must be judged. It is *what they are* which ought to determine our judgements of their value.
Another example of misplaced judgments: I might decide to call the Mona Lisa “Lady Gaga”, but that would not alter the fact that Mona Lisa/Lady Gag is a fine portrait regardless of my mis-naming her.
Bruce –
I don’t understand what you’re getting at in your point 2) above.
Ann,
I actually think the problem is that you are trying to define two people in a committed relationship and having sex as marriage. I can define a Ford pickup as Ferrari but that does not make it one. It just confuses everyone else.
If same-sex is ok, then why only 2 people, or for that matter why limit it to people? What makes hetero different is the complementarity and ability to procreate. That ability to procreate is a good for them and for society. That is sufficient reason to give it a separate name and honor it as distinct from same-sex.
So now what else is same-sex missing? Its missing the differences that engagement with the opposite sex brings. Men and women think and act differently. That difference enhances both, makes them more fully human. Its also missing the ability to procreate. Parents benefit and flourish from their engagement with their children and vice-versa. Again, it makes them all more fully human. But even childless couples receive the benefit of engagement with the opposite sex.
So what does same-sex bring? As far as I can see, its basically the ability to satisfy a desire. Ok fine. But fulfilling desires does not always mean flourishing. Stealing, killing, adultery, etc are all desires that do not lead to immoral behavior. A desire might be an indication that fulfilling it will lead to a good but its not sufficient. We should be able to point to data which rationally proves its a good. I think that data is entirely missing. And is not the committed, etc which is used to take your eye off the ball. All those attributes are readily available to a deep friendship. They can move in together, pledge to live their lives together, share their property, etc. A group of those people living in a commune is a good example. The only attribute not available in a deep friendship is the sex so there has to be something about the sex itself, which is good not just for the couple, but for society. That is true of hetero marriage.
I was confused myself in point 2. Maybe this is more cogent.
First, lets stipulate that slavery is against God’s will. Lets also stipulate that the Church taught it was ok to own slaves and that it did not teach the opposite, that you must own a slave to fulfill God’s will.
Now lets consider consider contraception, just to pick something. Lets stipulate that contraception follows with Gods will. Lets also stipulate that his Church directly contradicts that teaching.
Forget all the jibberish above about judging, I think this sufficiently defines the problem
In both cases, the Magisterium mis-judged God’s will. But in the first, they were too expansive or generous, if you will, in allowing human action and did not force anyone to directly contradict Gods will. They merely allowed it. In the second, the Magisterium also mis-judged God’s will, but here they commanded an action explicitly against Gods will. That a fundamental difference between the two errors. I guess given human freedom, God would allow both to occur, but the first seems like an error a loving benevolent father might let the Church make, but the second seems only cruel given that I believe he watches over and guides the Church to help humanity find him in eternity.
This discussion is very similar to many, many previous back-and-forth arguments on threads about gays and the church. But Alison’s interview contains many original parts. It would have been nice to see them discussed. For example:
My current canonical status is anomalous. I am a validly ordained priest in good standing, with no penalties or disciplinary matters hanging over me. [...] I have made public a reasoned disagreement with the current third-order teaching of the Roman Congregations concerning the “objectively disordered” nature of the “homosexual inclination.” [...] I should say, in case it is of interest to your readers, that at no stage since I exposed my conscience in this area to a Roman congregation in 1996 has any church authority made any attempt to persuade me of the falsity of my position.
Isn’t that interesting? I can’t comment on it because I know not one iota about canon law, but I was a little bit disappointed that this thread stuck to the usual deep grooves instead of the unusual openings offered by the interview.
Bruce:
I was referring to “your” argument that was not philosophical, theologican, anthropological or ontological. IMO, your argument is like many “kitchen table arguments”. This does not mean that such arguments are not valuable, but I was focusing on the “underpinnings” of the Church’s teachings. Thus, I was challenging the notion that a man and woman in marriage, when they come together as in sex, “completes each other”. This is pure nonsense if you exclude the biological element in terms of procreation. Therefore, I ask again “what is missing in a male and female that is incomplete and what makes this incompleteness complete if they have sex in marriage?”.
If you want to argue about biological complementarity, then your argument falls apart because many couples may be open to children when they get married, but later on decide they don’t want children. If you argue that their marriage is “incomplete”, what makes this incompleteness evil or immoral? I believe that children are a blessing of marriage. Indeed, children can benefit a marriage in many ways. However, the absence of children does not make the marriage relationship evil or immoral. If children are the only way that a man and woman in marriage become complete, then you have not answered the fact that many couples cannot have children or choose not to for “good reasons”….some of these reasons were detailed in my earlier blog.
Your comment to Ann Chapman said “So what does same-sex bring? As far as I can see, its basically the ability to satisfy a desire. Ok fine. But fulfilling desires does not always mean flourishing. Stealing, killing, adultery, etc are all desires that do not lead to immoral behavior.”
This is pure nonsense because you failled to give any reference to the unitive or love dimension of marriage. Thus your description that same-sex only satisfies the desire for pleasure simultaneously shortchanges the breath and multidimensionality of the significance of sexual relations within marriage that includes, other obvious unitive love aspects such as “relieving stress, improving intimacy, boosting self-esteem, and helping couples to bond and build trust. I may remind you that the Church teaches that the pleasure of sexual relations is permissible in marriage!
Lastly, your assertion that the Church does not emphasize the biological over the personal and relational maybe your opinion, but most theologians, many bishops and most of the laity would highly disagree with you. An assertion is only an opinion if you don’t back it up. I tried to provide some theological and philosophical arguments to back up my assertions. The Church “talks a good game” that their teachings are personal, relational, and not physicalism…but a careful examination of sexual ethical teachings prove otherwise. This theological controversy has divided our church and has lead a “crisis of truth” within the Catholic Church. Even JP II proclaimed that Catholic theology does not endorse one particular philosophical or theological method, even while in practice he often accepted only the neoscholastic method.
Finally, to assert that every person has a unalienable right to 3 feet of earth applies to a US citiizen, or to the country where the person was born and has these kinds of rights. These rights you talk about are not rights according to Natural or Divine law. They are rights given to people by civil authority. If you are implying or asserting that if a foreigner, in the US illegally, commits a felony in the US, and is deported is an “intrinsically evil act”, then you have not understood the issue or provided any rational argument to back up this absurd claim. You are also in the minority my friend.
Bruce, I would love to debate these issues in detail with you, but if this give-and-take is going to continue in this way, then we should move on.
Bruce –
I tried to answer your objections above in the other thread.
About slavery and the difference between the Church’s saying you may own slaves and you *have to* own slaves, granted that is a big difference
But that is only half the story. The Church also told the *slaves* they must obey their masters. And that was totally wrong. Totally.
Bruce –
One more point — about the meaning(s)/use of the word “marriage”. That is a semantic issue, not a moral one relating to whether or not gay love is good or bad. But, again, I grant you that for eons “marriage” has meant a very definite institution in every culture that uses the term. Not that the institutions in every culture were totally alike, but the cultures did find it a good practice to have one term for the institution, and the meaning(s) were eventually built into the legal system.
No doubt they were very careful to develop definitions surrounding the term that would set a standard for precedents, etc. in other words, what the word “marriage” means in a system of law is important. So it might — just might — be that it would be wise to keep that term for hetero marriages. However, the American courts (the ones, after all, who would appreciate any problem with a definition change) don’t generally seem to think the changing, broadening of the definition is a bad idea. At any rate, that is a prudential judgment, specifically of the semantic sort.
To add to Ann’s comment about the Church’s teachiing on Slavery, note the definitive proclaimations supporting Slavery. Note the moral assertions of Pope Gregory IX and St. Thomas Aquinas and an important 1866 Holy Office instruction, signed by Pius IX, especially the last sentence!!! Then, look at the reversal that follows.
Supporting Slavery:
1226 AD: The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.
1224-1274 AD: St.Thomas Aquinas defends slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. Children of a slave mother are rightly slaves even though they have not committed personal sin! (Quoted by many later Popes).
1866 AD: The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX declares: Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
The Turnaround:
1888 AD: Pope Leo III condemns slavery in more general terms, and supports the anti-slavery movement.
1918 AD: The new Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedictus XV condemns ‘selling any person as a slave’. (There is no condemnation of ‘owning’ slaves, however).
1965 AD: The Second Vatican Council defends basic human rights and denounces all violations of human integrity, including slavery (Gaudium et Spes, no 27,29,67).
Michael, IMHO this is complete nonsense.
If you want to argue about biological complementarity, then your argument falls apart because many couples may be open to children when they get married, but later on decide they don’t want children. If you argue that their marriage is “incomplete”, what makes this incompleteness evil or immoral?
Biological complementarity is a biological fact no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. And its true regardless of whether the couple produces children or not.
Ann,
Another thought.
Many refer to infertile couples as an argument for same-sex relationships. Here is where I think the error lies in that argument.
An infertile hetero couple fits the general norms for marriage, ie male-female, and are exceptional in one regard, their infertility. The same-sex couple does not fit the general norms for marriage but do overlap in one exceptional feature, their infertility. Logic, I think, allows one who fits the general norms to be included in a larger group even with an exceptional characteristic, but the reverse does not hold. For example, a man and a woman with exceptional math skills would both be included in a group defined as ‘humans with exceptional math skills’ but the fact that the man has the same exceptional math skills as a woman would not be sufficient to include him in a group defined as women with exceptional math skills. He does not fit the general norm of the larger group, being a woman.
Bruce –
I’m not sure of your terminology here. By “general norm” do you mean a definition or some part of a definition? For instance, the definition of “bachelor” is “unmarried male adult human”. If so, then both red-headed and blonde unmarried male adult human” are included in the class “bachelor”, as are the bald ones, etc. But to be a bachelor, a person has to have every single one of those characteristics. You can’t leave one out and still have a bachelor. Yes, you can describe (but not define) some bachelors as red-heads and some as bald. But such descriptions are irrelevant to class membership.
The question is: do you include “fertile” in your definition of “married person”? At times you seem to want to avoid doing so. But if you do use two different definitions of “married couple” in your argumeent (one including “fertile” and the other not including it), then your conclusion cannot follow for the simple reason that a second definition changes the subject.
Bruce:
You missed my point. Perhaps this is my fault for not being completely clear. I was arguing over biological complementarity from two standpoints (1) fertility-infertility and (2) human completeness. Both of these issues concern the Church’s teaching about marriage. Thus I was challenging the norms of marriage, not simple using the Church’s teaching as the basis for my argument. In other words, you cannot argue, for example, that Aquinas’s teachings make clear the immorality of contraception for justifying Humanae Vitae (HV), but invoking the norm in Humanae Vitae. You must stick to Aquinas. Hence, when you say that same-sex couples do not fit the defintion of marriage, you are simply asseting a Church teaching, not its underlinning theological and philosophical argument. Therefore my argument is as follows:
1. I define biological complementarity as hetergenital and reproductive complementarity. Heterogential complementarity pertains to the biological, the genital distinction between male and female. However, the mere possession of male or female genitals is insufficient to constitute heterogenital complementarity because genitals must also function properly. Heterogential complementarity is the foundation for reproductive complementarity, and sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage. The Church argues that there are reproductive and non-reproductive acts and married couples only have to be “open to the transmission of life” (emphasis-added). The Magisterium argues that homosexual acts are immoral because they are closed to the transmission of life. However, permanently infertile heterosexsual reproductive acts are as biologically closed to the transmission of life as homosexual acts. Yet, the Church permits couples to practice NFP indefinitely for good reasons. How is the dilberate intentionality of heterosexual physcial acts to prevent conception during sexual intercourse, open to the transmission of life? Why is non-reproductive heterosexual acts moral, but non-reproductive homosexual acts immoral? Additionally, if infertile heterosexual couples can adopt children to fulfill one end of marriage, so can homosexual couples.
2. The claim of the intrinsic difference between male and female, whereby the male and female find psychoaffective, social and spiritual completion in one another in marriage is entirely unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence. It is also unsubstantiated by human expeience. The divorce rate among Catholics is essentially the same as the US population. While we may argue that happily married couples, who have been married for a lifetime, are filled with many blessings, this fact is a far cry from asserting that all such couples find completeness in one another. Do we really mean that such couples may be more complete than before marriage? Are we referring to a target that the very few will only acheive? How is falling short of this target of “completeness” not possible for homosexual couples?
But that is only half the story. The Church also told the *slaves* they must obey their masters. And that was totally wrong. Totally.
Christ was subject to his masters who crucified him. God’s ways are not mans.
Bruce:
I have no idea what your last comment means. However, I agree that God’s ways are not mans.
When the subject is the moral law, no one knows God’s will or procreative plan. No one. To claim that a moral norm is a moral absolute and Divine Law (e.g. contraception), is pure speculation. When it conflicts with human experience and one’s practical reason, there is a problem that we must strive to solve. Aquinas has taught us that the primary principle of the moral law is one’s practical reason. The Church wants you to believe that one’s practical reason can err because sin and ignorance can distort right reason. This is true. However, and conveniently, the Church teaches that one should not rely of one’s individual conscious as the determinant of the moral truth. Yet, we are also taught that we must never go against our informed conscious because that is the ultimate and higher moral principle. The Church proclaims that we can rely on the teachings of the Magisterium, full stop. However, what the Church fails to recognize is that the Magisterium has proclaimed many of its teachings to be the absolute moral truth, but later such teachings were found to incorrect. The magisterium, popal bulls included, have erred in the past, and many of the Church’s teachings have been reformed.
In the end, if we disagree with a Church teaching it must be based on our “informed conscience”. The Church defines what an informed conscious means and also provides guidelines for us in cases of disagreement with the teachings of the Magisterium. Nevertheless, they rarely discuss or teach the theory of conscious for fear that people will not understand it and it might lead to individualism.
When we disagree on certain sexual ethical teachings, we are disagreeing on specific moral issues, not faith issues, such as the deposit of faith, the fundamentals of our faith according to Christ and His Gospel message. Of course, this deposit of faith has expanded over the last 40 years to ensure that papal proclamations about morals would be included in the deposit of faith, because they are somehow needed. Most theologians and Canonists are profoundly in disagreement with the Roman Curia over this issue.
We can disagree and be faithful Catholics.
Michael,
Agreed. We can disagree and be faithful Catholics. My previous response was to Ann’s comment that the Church taught slavers to obey and that was totally wrong. My point is that its not inconsistent with the way we actually saw Christ behave. It was a follow-up to my earlier point about the error in slavery is not of the same type as the the potential error in sexual morality. You can agree or disagree but finding alot of historical data does not change the underlying nature of the error and its fundamental difference from potential error in sexual morality. The logic is unassailable.
You seem to believe: However, the mere possession of male or female genitals is insufficient to constitute heterogenital complementarity because genitals must also function properly.
I disagree. The possession of genitals is sufficient to define maleness or femaleness. That definition is sufficient to create a class – males and females – who are eligible to marry. As I mentioned the fact that some individuals in the class have an exceptional characteristic, infertility, need not preclude them from belonging to the larger class. But you cannot logically say that because we allow some people who fit in the larger class and have this exceptional characteristic to belong to the large group, than anyone else who has this exceptional characteristic, infertility, they now should be able to be a part of the same group. It does not follow. They fail the first test of being male and female with its uniform presumtion of fertility.
The same argument it true of adoption. Each and every child is conceived by a male and a female parent. So it makes sense to allow adoption by heterosexual couples as replacements for the biological parents. Again, it does not follow that we need to include same-sex parents simply because there are two adults involved, regardless of their relationship.
Again I disagree with your statement. The claim of the intrinsic difference between male and female, whereby the male and female find psychoaffective, social and spiritual completion in one another in marriage is entirely unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence.
I will not accept any ‘scientific’ evidence which attempts to make this point because it directly contradicts my day-to-day experience of human relationships.
You may consider it ‘Kitchen table arguments’, but I believe that the morality of marriage is accessable to all. It has been with us since before recorded history and stares us in the face everyday. The fact that by looking at this issue from every angle, inside out, backward and forward, we now have people who believe otherwise just tells me that by over thinking a simple situation humanity has totally confused itself on the morality of same-sex relationships. Happens all the time to all of us. And in that case, our conscience, no matter how well formed, can still lead us astray. I read a quote the other day to the effect of relying primarily our conscience often leads to one hearing oneself loudly.
Good night, my friend.
Bruce:
Indeed, we can disagree. However, your assertion that my argument is unassailable misses many of my points of argument. You ignore the following important issues and questions:
1. Is it reasonable that salvation for homosexual individuals can only be possible if they practice “imposed” life-long celibacy? I call your attention to the details of my argument that celibacy is a special gift from God given to the very few, and the virtue of celibacy must be “voluntariy chosen” and not “imposed by authority”.
2. Can two people with a same sex attraction, be united in a marriage where there is unconditional love and fidelity? If children must be loved and reared, does adoption of children satisfy this end of marriage?
3. Are not people with same sex attraction “habitual sinners”, like contraceptive couples are classified by the Church? If so, why are people with a same sex attraction or people who are divorced and remarried, both habitual sinners, not given absolution by the principle of gradualnesss offered to other habitual sinners such as contraceptive couples? Is this not contradictory? If not, how do you explain the difference between the Church’s moral teachings and its pastoral practices? If the Church’s pastoral practices are wrong or in error, what does this say about their moral teachings?
4. “Your day-to-day experience of human relationships” is not sufficient scientific evidence to claim that my claim is false …..that is “The claim of the intrinsic difference between male and female, whereby the male and female find psychoaffective, social and spiritual completion in one another in marriage is entirely unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence.” This is like saying that “your limited experience” that 50% of young married people in your local church practice NFP is proof that 50% of US or worldwide Catholics that practice NFP. Nothing could be further than the truth!!
Your experience is not my experience, so show me the scientific evidence or offer me some compelling arguments. I offered you several examples to demonstrate that the personal elements of affective complementarity are distributed among males and females and are not intrinsic to either’s nature prior to socialization. Some males are more nuturing than females; some females are more dominant than males. Do we want to claim that marriage mysteriously creates a “unity of two” where the deficiencies (incompletenesses) of each spouse are made complete? Non-sense.
5. Your assertion, that the morality of marriage is accessible to all, is true. What is not true is your and the Church’s assessment of it. How do you want to measure this? Survey after survey demonstrate that most Catholics, across generational cohorts, and most theologians and many bishops disagree with the Church on many sexual ethical issues. Are you claiming that those that diagree have a distorted reason, are infected by the evils of the secular world or are invincible ignorant? Get real my friend. You may believe in the authority of the magisterium on all moral issues. However, the argument from authority is considerd by most schools of Catholic teachig to be the weakest argument.
The only argument you have is that a marriage must be between a male and female because they are the only ones that can have children, that God has commanded that only a male and female can marry and that same-sex couples who do marry offend God. You may be right, but we don’t find this explicit commandment in revelation.