The Light of Mt. Tabor - Catholic Doctrine on Sexual Morality

Catholic Doctrine on Sexual Morality

A Series of Brief Reflections on Modern Moral Questions

The Catholic Rejection of Same-sex Marriage

The central argument against Same-sex Marriage and homosexual activity from reason alone is teleologically based and is founded upon the natural moral law which is discernible through the use of right reason (recta ratio). The way to approach the matter is to look at the final end of the conjugal act, which is twofold in nature, i.e., it is procreative and unitive. These two principles, the unitive and the procreative are inseparably bound together and that is why artificial birth control, adultery, masturbation, and homosexual activity, along with any other activities that frustrate the natural use and end of the sexual faculty are by definition immoral. Artificial birth control does not inhibit the unitive principle of the sexual act, but it does, by an act of the will of one or both of the spouses, prevent the connatural procreative aspect of the act, and thus it is disordered in its end. Adultery is disordered in that it is a misuse of the unitive principle of the sexual act, while it may or may not frustrate the procreative element depending on the use of artificial birth control on the part of the individuals involved. Homosexual activity is disordered in both cases, because two persons of the same sex cannot experience either the unitive principle or the procreative principle, and so homosexual acts are frustrated to an even greater degree than those already mentioned above.

When looking at adultery and homosexual activity in particular it can be said that both actions are morally grave matter and are thus intrinsically disordered. But the Fathers of the Church would distinguish between the two acts by pointing out that adultery between a man and a woman, although it is gravely sinful in that it is disordered in its unitive principle, and may or may not be disordered in its procreative principle, is at the same time a natural act; while homosexual activity is disordered in both the unitive and the procreative principles, while at the same time it is an unnatural act (i.e., it is an act contra naturam). Clearly, the sinful character of the homosexual act is far greater than that of an act of adultery between a man and a woman; the former is an unnatural and sinful action, while the latter is a natural act which is sinful because it is done outside of the covenant of marriage.

It should also be noted that there may be some individuals who promote the idea that one is born a homosexual, but there is no scientific evidence to support this contention. Even if such a genetic predisposition were to be found, it would not excuse these acts because they are intrinsically and objectively disordered in their proper end. Take alcoholism as an example; there is some evidence to support the idea that certain people are born with a genetic predisposition to become alcoholic, but this predisposition does not negate human freedom and responsibility. A person with such a genetic problem is still a moral agent, and so he remains responsible for his own actions. He may have a genetic propensity toward becoming an alcoholic, but nevertheless he must exercise his free will in order to avoid becoming a drunkard. The same would hold if it were to be shown that there is a genetic factor underlying the homosexual inclination. Genetics and environment contribute to making up who a person is, but neither of these elements negate human freedom.

In addition, there is a terminological point that needs to be addressed. The Church does not subscribe to the politically correct term "orientation" when speaking about homosexuality; instead, it uses the term "inclination," which is related to the theological term "concupiscence." The term "orientation" indicates an ontological reality (i.e., a thing that exists substantially or essentially within a being), but this is not appropriate when speaking about homosexuality; instead, the term "inclination" is a better word, because it does not admit that homosexuality is a stable existing reality in the being or nature of the human person, but that it is merely an objectively disordered inclination tending toward an intrinsic moral evil, i.e., the homosexual act. The distinction is vital, and so the use of the term "orientation" should be avoided for the sake of clarity. Think of it this way, no one would ever think of saying that someone has an "orientation" to kleptomania, because the very idea is ludicrous. The individual may have an inclination to steal things, and they may be compulsive about it, but they still possess free will and can resist this objectively disordered inclination, although it may take great effort on their part to do so. To summarize: an "orientation" is a stable essential quality existing within a being; while an "inclination" is a disordered appetite directed toward a misuse of a natural faculty, which when acted upon is either venially or gravely immoral.

The difficulty you will experience in debating this issue with others concerns a distinction I made at the beginning of this response, i.e., right reason (recta ratio). The use of right reason can show a person from a purely natural perspective that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered in its end, but the problem is that many people do not use "right" reason; instead, it would be better to say that they rationalize and try to accept immoral behavior as moral because it feels right to them, and so in reality they are not using reason at all. The best thing to do in a debate with such individuals is to remain consistent in your own terminology, and in this way to convey to them the objective moral truth about this topic. Clearly, they will try to get you to accept the politically correct terminology promoted by the media, but if you do that, you will immediately weaken your own case, because they are using terms formulated specifically to promote the homosexual agenda. In this situation it is still possible for you to make your viewpoint clear to them, but it is much more difficult.

The natural law is the light of right reason written into the very being of man, and thus it is man's participation in the understanding of the universe and how it operates, it is a participation in the divine Logos, and as a consequence it is immutable.

The Inseparable Nature of the Unitive and Procreative Aspects of the Conjugal Act

I will begin by pointing out that no act of the human will can separate the unitive and procreative principles of the sexual act, and to attempt to do so is by definition immoral. But in looking at the unitive principle alone, always bearing in mind that it can never legitimately be separated by any human intentionality from the procreative principle, it is possible to see the complementarity of man and woman, and how these two beings complete and fulfill each other. A man finds his physical and psychological fulfillment in a woman, for it is only in this manner that he can find his completion in a communion of life and love that actually brings into being a single living entity, a family. Thus he discovers his humanity in the union of flesh that can only exist between himself and a woman, as head (man) and body (woman), which iconically mirrors the unity of Christ and His Church. He cannot find this unity of flesh in a person identical to himself, but can only find it in a person who, while fully human as he is, is nevertheless different from him, supplying him with that which his being lacks, i.e., the feminine principle. Masculinity and femininity are ordered to each other, and they fulfill and complete each other. Thus a man can only experience the union of flesh open to new life with a woman. It is impossible for two persons of the same sex to experience this unitive principle. All of this holds for a woman as well, for she can only find her fulfillment and completion in a man. So the differences between a man and a woman are ordered to a proper complementarity, and this is something that is lacking between two persons of the same sex. The intimacy that can exist between a man and a woman, both physically and psychologically, and I would add spiritually, is simply missing in a relationship between two persons of the same sex. That is not to say that two men cannot have a deep and abiding friendship and love for each other, but the love involved is of a different order and of an essentially different nature, because it can never find its fulfillment in a properly ordered and complementary sexual expression. Biologically and psychologically a man is disposed and ordered to a relationship of love that is open to new life with a woman, and this is not possible in a same-sex relationship. Our society is presently promoting an androgynous view of the human person. It wants to reduce sexual differentiation to culturally conditioned behaviors, and wants to say that we can alter these behaviors by social engineering. But this fails to take into account the deep biological and psychological differences which form a part of being a man or a woman. It is our duty as Catholics to proclaim the full human dignity and equality of men and women, but it is also our duty to proclaim unequivocally that although men and women are equal, they are not identical. It is precisely in their biological and psychological differences that they fulfill and complement each other. Two persons of the same sex cannot do this. This truth can be seen when we look at divine revelation, but it can even be understood when we look at nature alone, for sexual differentiation is clearly intended for a communion of love open to new life. This is part of the imago Dei found within the human person, and same sex relationships disfigure this image and promote societal disorder, because they are not based on the truth about man, but are founded upon an ideology of freedom divorced from human nature.

The Homosexual Condition is not an Ontological Reality

There is no such thing as being "gay," and so a man must never be reduced in his subsistent reality to the disordered inclinations that afflict his mind (nous) and will (i.e., the gnomic will, and not the natural will which remains unaffected by the ancestral sin). The homosexual inclination, like other disordered inclinations (e.g., pedophilia and ephebophilia, or kleptomania and other compulsive disorders), does not exist ontologically; instead, it is a "pathological constitution" [1] of the mind (nous) and gnomic will, caused by the fall of man from grace at the beginning of human existence. Moreover, the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil, and so although the condition is not in itself a sin, it is not to be thought of as benign, morally neutral, or worse, as a "good." Instead, the homosexual condition must be seen for what it is, i.e., a relative absence of the good in the gnomic will of the creature, and so no one is "gay." [2] That being said, the Magisterium holds that some human beings are afflicted with homosexual tendencies, and those who experience these disordered desires are to strive to overcome them by the power of God's grace. As a consequence, no one may ever identify himself with this, or any other, moral privation, and when discussing this issue, it is vital that a Catholic avoid the politically correct terminology of modern secular culture. Sadly, the American Psychological Association (APA), under pressure from homosexual activists, removed this objective disorder from its category of mental illnesses afflicting man; but regardless, the Church continues to teach that the homosexual inclination, like any other disordered inclination, is a disorder of the mind (nous) and gnomic will caused by the fall. Therefore, a Catholic must be resolute in teaching the truth about man as it has been revealed in Christ Jesus and must not fall into the error of describing this pathological disorder with the politically correct terminology of modern secular humanism.

NOTES:

[1] See the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's instruction, Persona Humana, no. 8; as the CDF instruction explains, "A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable." In some individuals this disordered inclination, which is a mental (psychological) disorder related to the fall, may take on characteristics that cause it to perdure over time, but it remains a disorder nonetheless and must not be thought of as an essential component of a man's nature.

[2] See the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's instruction, Homosexualitatis Problema, no. 3; I note with sadness that after the publication of the instruction Persona Humana some people began to teach that the homosexual inclination itself was not objectively disordered, but that only homosexual activity was to be described as disordered. Now in order to clarify this mistake the CDF stated the following: "Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics [Persona Humana] of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being intrinsically disordered, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, 4). In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Natural and Unnatural Desires

In Catholic moral doctrine it is important to distinguish between natural desires, which can be misused (i.e., the desire of a man for physical intimacy with a woman), and unnatural desires, which have no proper use at all, and which indicate that a man is suffering from an objective disorder of the mind (i.e., homosexual desires that perdure over time).

That being said, the desire of a man for a woman is natural and good, because it is a part of God's plan for the sanctification of the human race. The physical union established by the conjugal act between a man and a woman living in a marriage covenant that is indissoluble is a good of nature, and a true sacramental grace in the New Covenant at the same time, with the goal of uniting the spouses in a life-long gift of self through the power of love with openness to the procreation of children. Consequently, this natural desire (i.e., of a man for a woman, and of a woman for a man) manifests the complementarity of the sexes, and reveals the spousal significance of the human body (male and female), which has the added grace of signifying the union of Christ and the Church.

Now on the other hand, the desire of a man for a man — when it persists over time as some sort of stable mental state (i.e., as a pathological constitution) — is unnatural and mentally defective, because it is contrary to the good of man and frustrates the natural complementarity of the sexes. The homosexual inclination — although not a sin — is an objective disorder, because it is "a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil," and as a consequence, the inclination itself cannot be seen as morally neutral, or even worse, as a good. [See the CDF Instruction Homosexualitatis Problema, no. 3] Thus, homosexual desires, which arise in the mind and persist over time, are completely abnormal and mentally defective, since they are contrary to nature (contra naturam) and evince a form of sexual development that is severely dysfunctional.

Now as far as masturbation and oral sex are concerned, both of these are sinful acts, and not merely desires of the mind, which means that your comparison of these acts to the homosexual inclination is inappropriate. Nevertheless, if one makes the necessary distinction between desires that arise in the mind and sinful acts, it is clear that if a man were to experience exclusive desires for self-abuse (i.e., masturbatory desires that replaced the natural desire of a man for a woman), he would be exhibiting signs of a mental defect; and so, the persistent desire for self-abuse would reveal a lack of proper sexual development. The same of course would hold in connection with desires related to oral sex (i.e., if these disordered desires replaced the natural desire of a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman), because an exclusive fixation on these desires would show that the man in question was suffering from an affliction of the mind that is contrary to nature. Such a man would be experiencing a form of sexual development that is objectively retarded.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse