Natural law (again)
The first premise of Catholic natural law theory regarding sex, coming from Plato, is that the sole natural function of sex is reproduction. This is false. The genitals have three functions-excretion, reproduction and pleasure. Pleasure is a function in its own right, incorporating both connection and catharsis. Hence sex in nature has a range of functions beyond reproduction, as animals have many reasons to connect, and the capacity for sexual pleasure is wildly in excess of any “needed” for reproduction.
But Plato (and Church fathers such as St Augustine) had such a narrow, controlled and controlling view of rationality that any catharsis becomes “overthrowing” or “subverting” rationality. While Plato’s (and those that followed him) understanding of nature is so limited, that Plato cites animals of the same sex not having sex with each other as evidence for reproduction being the (sole) natural function of sex, a claim that is empirically false.
To operate on the basis of natural law requires a careful, open-minded, empirical look at the actual function of things in nature: something traditional natural law theory has often lacked. Mischaracterisations of function are a classic failing of natural law theory. So St Paul can decide that long hair on a man is against nature, since a function of hair is, apparently, to help differentiate men from women (something that was very important to St Paul) while St Thomas Aquinas can decide that charging interest is against nature since the function of money is to be used in exchange.
As for natural law attitudes to sexual pleasure, that has shifted over time from sex for any other purpose than having children being something that outrages nature (St Clement of Alexandria) to Pope Gregory the Great declaring that conjugal union cannot take place without conjugal pleasure, and such pleasure cannot under any circumstances be without blame to Pope Paul VI declaring that pleasure is fine as long it is completely subordinated to the reproductive function in that, even if the procreative function cannot be fulfilled or is, by careful timing, being evaded, there is no problem as long as the procreative function is not intentionally actively frustrated.
Once one has accepted the (false) claim that the only natural function of sex is reproduction, the question then arises how serious a sin “misuse” of the sexual organs “against nature” is. Given the lack of wider adverse consequences or harmed parties, any such sin is purely metaphysical. As it is metaphysical, there is no determinative weight that can be given to it on non-metaphysical grounds. (The lack of such non-metaphysical grounds has encouraged the invention of all sorts of spurious evidence for same-sex orientation being bad: the commandment against bearing false witness against one’s neighbour being apparently dispensable. Those familiar with the history of Jew-hatred will recognise the pattern.)
The metaphysical weight the sin has been given has been based on Philo of Alexandria’s rendition of the sin of Sodom, Philo being the person who originally married Platonic natural law to the Levitical prohibitions. If God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of “unnatural sex”, then clearly He regards such “rebellion against nature” very seriously. Indeed, a famous medieval text held that God was so in favour of extermination of such persons that Jesus insisted all “sodomites” die before incarnating. Hence the traditional Christian teaching that two men having sex was a graver sin than a man raping a woman, as St Thomas Aquinas sets out, citing St Augustine on Sodom in support. Folk were burnt alive for having sex with a member of the same sex, they were not burnt alive for raping a member of the opposite sex. Philo’s interpretation of the story of Sodom provided the necessary metaphysical weighting of seriousness.
The problem for the contemporary Catholic Church is that there is no clear basis for rating same sex acts any lower, if one accepts the traditional (mis)reading of Genesis 19 that the sin of Sodom-the reason why God destroyed the city-was because of “unnatural” sex. Even though none of the other Scriptural references to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah support such an interpretation.
Moreover, given that it is clear that sexual orientation (and flexibility) is either congenital or fixed in early childhood (so not a choice), this then commits the Catholic Church to characterise the same-sex oriented as inherently morally flawed. Or, to use the current formulation, objectively disordered because same-sex orientation 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. But to do otherwise than characterise the same-sex oriented as inherently morally flawed would be to demolish both the traditional reading of the sin of Sodom and, more seriously, the traditional teaching that the sole natural function of sex is reproduction: the latter being the cornerstone of all Catholic teaching on sex, as Pope Benedict’s recent publication on the family makes clear.
So, the family in particular-and human sexuality in general-is defined in such a way that there is literally no social place for the same-sex oriented. Indeed, to grant them such a social place is to threaten, Pope Benedict assures us, the very basis of world peace. The same-sex oriented are cast outside the realm of the properly human. In the words of an African Anglican Bishop: Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man. But Nigerian Anglican clerics are celebrated by conservative Christians for their commitment to traditional Christian teachings. The Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, supports legislation that would degrade the rights civil association of the same-sex oriented in Nigeria more than the Nuremberg laws degraded those of Jews in Nazi Germany. By the exterminatory standards of traditional Christian teaching, that is comparatively mild.
The easier folk are to exclude, the less benefit there has to be to make the exclusion worthwhile to the excluders. And the same-sex oriented have, until recently, been very easy to exclude-there are few more isolated people anywhere than a same-sex attracted boy or girl hitting puberty in a deeply monotheistically religious family and community. The notion that having sex with a member of your own sex is a grave sin is an easy sell because it is a “sin” the vast majority on one’s flock are never going to be tempted to commit. So, most can feel virtuous without any cost: something televangelists and other hucksters of faith take full advantage of.
Such preaching-including that of Pope Benedict in the above homily-are acts of bullying cowardice. Flattering a huge majority by telling how superior they are to a small, easily persecuted minority. How does one obscure that one is engaged in such an act of bullying cowardice? Claim that the small minority nevertheless represent such a potent force for corruption and destruction that they threaten the basis for all that “decent folk” hold dear. Especially if one grants them civic equality. Again, those familiar with the history of Jew-hatred will recognise the patterns-indeed, the specific allegations.
If Pope Benedict had waited a year and a month, he could have preached his homily precisely 70 years after another German-speaking leader flattered a vast majority by telling them how superior they were to a tiny, easily persecuted minority who were a threat to world peace. But, then, the Pope is old enough to remember the original speech and its associated propaganda.
And one of the fundamental features of bigotry is that it cannot-to a lesser or greater degree-see itself, since the entire point is to put the objects of bigotry in a profoundly different category from "decent, proper folk" such as oneself.
But Plato (and Church fathers such as St Augustine) had such a narrow, controlled and controlling view of rationality that any catharsis becomes “overthrowing” or “subverting” rationality. While Plato’s (and those that followed him) understanding of nature is so limited, that Plato cites animals of the same sex not having sex with each other as evidence for reproduction being the (sole) natural function of sex, a claim that is empirically false.
To operate on the basis of natural law requires a careful, open-minded, empirical look at the actual function of things in nature: something traditional natural law theory has often lacked. Mischaracterisations of function are a classic failing of natural law theory. So St Paul can decide that long hair on a man is against nature, since a function of hair is, apparently, to help differentiate men from women (something that was very important to St Paul) while St Thomas Aquinas can decide that charging interest is against nature since the function of money is to be used in exchange.
As for natural law attitudes to sexual pleasure, that has shifted over time from sex for any other purpose than having children being something that outrages nature (St Clement of Alexandria) to Pope Gregory the Great declaring that conjugal union cannot take place without conjugal pleasure, and such pleasure cannot under any circumstances be without blame to Pope Paul VI declaring that pleasure is fine as long it is completely subordinated to the reproductive function in that, even if the procreative function cannot be fulfilled or is, by careful timing, being evaded, there is no problem as long as the procreative function is not intentionally actively frustrated.
Once one has accepted the (false) claim that the only natural function of sex is reproduction, the question then arises how serious a sin “misuse” of the sexual organs “against nature” is. Given the lack of wider adverse consequences or harmed parties, any such sin is purely metaphysical. As it is metaphysical, there is no determinative weight that can be given to it on non-metaphysical grounds. (The lack of such non-metaphysical grounds has encouraged the invention of all sorts of spurious evidence for same-sex orientation being bad: the commandment against bearing false witness against one’s neighbour being apparently dispensable. Those familiar with the history of Jew-hatred will recognise the pattern.)
The metaphysical weight the sin has been given has been based on Philo of Alexandria’s rendition of the sin of Sodom, Philo being the person who originally married Platonic natural law to the Levitical prohibitions. If God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of “unnatural sex”, then clearly He regards such “rebellion against nature” very seriously. Indeed, a famous medieval text held that God was so in favour of extermination of such persons that Jesus insisted all “sodomites” die before incarnating. Hence the traditional Christian teaching that two men having sex was a graver sin than a man raping a woman, as St Thomas Aquinas sets out, citing St Augustine on Sodom in support. Folk were burnt alive for having sex with a member of the same sex, they were not burnt alive for raping a member of the opposite sex. Philo’s interpretation of the story of Sodom provided the necessary metaphysical weighting of seriousness.
The problem for the contemporary Catholic Church is that there is no clear basis for rating same sex acts any lower, if one accepts the traditional (mis)reading of Genesis 19 that the sin of Sodom-the reason why God destroyed the city-was because of “unnatural” sex. Even though none of the other Scriptural references to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah support such an interpretation.
Moreover, given that it is clear that sexual orientation (and flexibility) is either congenital or fixed in early childhood (so not a choice), this then commits the Catholic Church to characterise the same-sex oriented as inherently morally flawed. Or, to use the current formulation, objectively disordered because same-sex orientation 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. But to do otherwise than characterise the same-sex oriented as inherently morally flawed would be to demolish both the traditional reading of the sin of Sodom and, more seriously, the traditional teaching that the sole natural function of sex is reproduction: the latter being the cornerstone of all Catholic teaching on sex, as Pope Benedict’s recent publication on the family makes clear.
So, the family in particular-and human sexuality in general-is defined in such a way that there is literally no social place for the same-sex oriented. Indeed, to grant them such a social place is to threaten, Pope Benedict assures us, the very basis of world peace. The same-sex oriented are cast outside the realm of the properly human. In the words of an African Anglican Bishop: Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man. But Nigerian Anglican clerics are celebrated by conservative Christians for their commitment to traditional Christian teachings. The Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, supports legislation that would degrade the rights civil association of the same-sex oriented in Nigeria more than the Nuremberg laws degraded those of Jews in Nazi Germany. By the exterminatory standards of traditional Christian teaching, that is comparatively mild.
The easier folk are to exclude, the less benefit there has to be to make the exclusion worthwhile to the excluders. And the same-sex oriented have, until recently, been very easy to exclude-there are few more isolated people anywhere than a same-sex attracted boy or girl hitting puberty in a deeply monotheistically religious family and community. The notion that having sex with a member of your own sex is a grave sin is an easy sell because it is a “sin” the vast majority on one’s flock are never going to be tempted to commit. So, most can feel virtuous without any cost: something televangelists and other hucksters of faith take full advantage of.
Such preaching-including that of Pope Benedict in the above homily-are acts of bullying cowardice. Flattering a huge majority by telling how superior they are to a small, easily persecuted minority. How does one obscure that one is engaged in such an act of bullying cowardice? Claim that the small minority nevertheless represent such a potent force for corruption and destruction that they threaten the basis for all that “decent folk” hold dear. Especially if one grants them civic equality. Again, those familiar with the history of Jew-hatred will recognise the patterns-indeed, the specific allegations.
If Pope Benedict had waited a year and a month, he could have preached his homily precisely 70 years after another German-speaking leader flattered a vast majority by telling them how superior they were to a tiny, easily persecuted minority who were a threat to world peace. But, then, the Pope is old enough to remember the original speech and its associated propaganda.
And one of the fundamental features of bigotry is that it cannot-to a lesser or greater degree-see itself, since the entire point is to put the objects of bigotry in a profoundly different category from "decent, proper folk" such as oneself.