On today’s Laura Ingraham show she interviewed Newsweek Religion Editor Lisa Miller about her recent article making the religious case for homosexual marriage. Miller’s defense was quite laughable. At one point when asked by Laura Ingraham about St. Paul’s references to homosexuality, Lisa Miller replied that the same scripture also condemned drunkenness, adultery, and divorce.
Now I thought that was a rather odd reply, especially when she said drunks can get married (though they might actually be psychological impaired to be able to actually give consent). Laura Ingraham pressed her on drunkenness, adultery, and divorce and weren’t they all bad things? The answer was lots of people get divorced. With that kind of logic we might as well get rid of laws since lots of people break them.
Now this might seem an incoherent argument, but this understanding has natural consequences. It is really only the Catholic Church that defends marriage and properly sees what marriage actually is. Protestant denominations for the most part have quite accepted divorce in a way reminiscent of Moses who allowed it because of their “hardness of heart” as Jesus said. We really should be having state constitutional changes on banning no fault divorce which is one of the most destructive things in human history. With rampant fornication, adultery, divorce and “remarriage” in a hook-up culture we can’t be surprised that the definition of marriage has fallen on hard times. The sacred character of marriage is that it is an indissoluble union. A a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children demands total fidelity. Turn on the TV or look at the culture and it would be really hard to extrapolate the meaning of marriage.
With the culture having such an improper understanding of marriage it is no wonder that so many can see no problem with same-sex marriage. Contraception and abortion are making heterosexual sex just as sterile as homosexual sex. When children as one of the two purposes of marriage are excluded it is easy to see how same-sex marriage can seem valid. Sex gets reduced to just mutual pleasure with no meaning beyond gratification.
The natural law can certainly lead us to an understanding of the two aims of marriage. Though the Newsweek article said it was making the “religious” case for it. Though actually they were making a progressive Christian argument for it since they did not address other religions or in fact provide arguments from those opposed to their conclusion. They were using scripture from both Testaments, yet somehow never got around the commandment to be fruitful which is impossible with same-sex sexual acts. No doubt homosexual apologists will point to heterosexual couples who are sterile, but this misses the fact that in their case something biological is not working properly. It is a defect which in some cases can be remedied. Whereas homosexual acts can never lead to children by its very nature.
There are so many things I love about the Catholic Church, and one of them is the consistency of her teachings. She can condemn homosexually, contraception, IVF, divorce, masturbation, fornication, etc; based on the actual meaning of marriage as taught by Jesus. Sex within marriage is the only valid context for sex and the sexual act must never be formally separated from the possibility of procreation. The last sentence provides the basis for all of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. When you separate sex from procreation (or vice versa) and/or allow sex outside of marriage all of the other errors necessarily follow.
Lisa Miller also referenced during the interview Psalm 139 which she called a “beautiful psalm” as evidence for support of homosexuality. This was from the reference to Fr. James Martin, S.J. she made in the original article. Fr. Martin commented on my blog about this reference. Though his comment was actually a reply to something Diogenes asked about whether he thought Jesus was still alive and clarified by saying Jesus if he was walking the Earth in physical form “would likewise reach out to the marginalized today, a group that would include gays and lesbians.” Jesus reaches out to all of us and part of that reaching out is calling us to repentance and saying “Go and sin no more.” Though I would add part of that marginalized group would be those who defend the Church teaching on sexual ethics. It is much more likely that someone objecting to homosexuality will be persecuted and even sued than someone with same-sex attraction. We can easily look to the Proposition 8 witch hunt being used against those who supported it in California as am example.
I would like to see some further clarification from Fr. Martin. Father linked to the Newsweek article on the America Magazine blog and gave no caveats as to what was quoted of him. My simple questions is does he believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered as the Church has always taught? For the most part I really enjoyed his book “Life with the Saints” and some of the articles he has written, it just annoys me when someone seems to skirt an issue instead of providing clarity.
23 comments
Jeff, I am waiting with baited breath for a direct answer from Fr. Martin on that one.
Good for you for asking it.
I think we all know where Fr. Martin stands. When there’s a serious question, the answer is usually bad.
As for the interview on Laura Ingraham, I was listening today. Whenever I hear the detractors of the Church speak I am reinforced in my faith. The utter ineptitude of this Miller woman and her ilk shows by contrast the enduring strength of the Church and our holy Catholic Faith.
I totally agree with what you said. We Catholics are probably too focused, though I can’t blame anyone, on homosexual “marriage.” It is shocking, dangerous and must be stopped. But the real damage to marriage has been done, as you rightly point out, by the heterosexual mainstream.
You listed no-fault divorce as being one of the causes for this surprising acceptance of homosexual “marriage.” You also point out contraception as being at fault too. How wise Pope Paul VI was in opposing this. How foolish are separated brethren are in accepting it.
I’d like to add a few more laws that have lead us to where we are. When we added marital status as a protected status in our civil laws, we thus legalized heterosexual promiscuity. From what I gather, it was hard or nearly impossible for unmarried people to live together before the 1960’s. From what I gather it was also hard for unmarried couples to find a hotel room. College dorms also had rules against cohabitation. Now with these laws against what it now called discrimination, but is really just being moral, it is promiscuity that is the protected behavior, not marriage.
Of lesser damage was the California case against the late actor Lee Marvin in what is now called palimony. While most people are not rich enough to be affected by this, this decision was a huge blow against marriage as it reduced marriage down to be the same as just being shacked up, as they used to say.
Private companies have done a huge disservice marriage when they offer health insurance and other benefits to what they call “domestic partners.”
All of these things have changed it so that there is no more marriage in America anymore. Or at least put it this way. The real heart of marriage is strictly optional. You can do it or not. In effect, what we have now is that everyone who calls themselves married really has something closer to a “domestic partnership.” The parts that make it a true marriage are optional. Is it any wonder why people today are so accepting of homosexual “marriage?” Can we really blame them?
The real blame for this mess is the straight community. Homosexuals only make up 4% of the population at best. The real enemies of marriage are divorce, contraception, the legal notion of something called a “domestic partnership”, cohabitation and promiscuity as a protected status, and palimony and benefits for “domestic partners.”
“The real enemies of marriage are divorce, contraception, the legal notion of something called a “domestic partnership”, cohabitation and promiscuity as a protected status, and palimony and benefits for “domestic partners.”
I disagree with you, there, MarkF. If we applied your logic to abortion, for instance, then since “failed” contraception often leads to abortion, we would focus on contraception as worse than abortion. Contraception sent us down the “slippery slope”, but abortion is where we hit bottom, and where we should all KNOW we are hitting the bottom–religion or no.
Similarly, we have failed to protect and be faithful to the marriage design. But to focus on remedies WHILE the meaning of marriage itself is under attack would be wrong and ineffective. Marriage would hit the bottom of the slope if we turned our attention to the initial causes of the slide.
Abortion and the prospect of sanctioned homosexual “marriage” are more dangerous, and therefore, more real, presently, than the errors that led to them.
Devon writes:
“But why are homosexual acts evil in their nature?
Because they cannot achieve their intrinsic finality- i.e. they can’t result in procreation.
–But neither can sex involving a sterile heterosexual couple.”
You are seriously gutting the distinction between natural and circumstantial acts by placing the distinction squarely on the achieved end. The distinction, when used to analyze the sexual life of the involuntary sterile couple would rest on the potential for an achievable end of the heterosexual marriage. By nature, two members of the same sex can never, under any circumstances, fulfill either of the two requirements for sacramental marriage in the Catholic tradition. So, an attempt to equate a same-sex couple with an involuntarily sterile heterosexual couple fails in that at least in potentia there is the possibility of fulfilling both requirements. There is no such potentia in the same-sex couple.
Also, you have misidentified the intrinsic finality of same-sex sexual relations. Same-sex sexual relations are not evil b/c they cannot achieve their intrinsic finality. They are evil b/c their intrinsic finality is non-procreative. So, all same-sex sexual acts, in fact, “by nature” achieve their intrinsic finality–non-procreativity.
Fr. Philip, OP
Fr. Philip wrote:
“So, an attempt to equate a same-sex couple with an involuntarily sterile heterosexual couple fails in that at least in potentia there is the possibility of fulfilling both requirements. There is no such potentia in the same-sex couple.”
Why do you say that a same sex couple cannot achieve either end of marriage? The procreative part is clear, but why not the building up of love? I have tried to anticipate this objection in my discussion of complementarity, but perhaps you have some other reason that you haven’t mentioned. (Or are you referring to something other than the “ends” of marriage when your talk about the two “requirements” of marriage?)
As for your concern that I am “seriously gutting the distinction between natural and circumstantial acts”, I suggest that the problem lies in the somewhat contrived and artificial way that the Church defines the nature of an act. This is tricky to explain without getting too graphic in describing various sexual acts, but I will do my best. Compare the situation of two couples:
Couple 1 is a heterosexual married couple where the wife had her uterus removed during childhood due to cancer. The Church says their acts of sexual intercourse are licit because the nature of their acts are ordered towards procreation even though their acts will never be procreative.
Couple 2 is a non-sterile heterosexual married couple. They engage in sexual acts that fall short of intercourse but which still result in pregnancy because they are not being careful about what they are doing. (Assume that there is no contraceptive intent, but that they are choosing to act in this because it is how they desire in this instance to express their affection for one another.) In this case, the Church would say that their sexual act is not licit because it is not ordered towards procreation, despite the fact that it was procreative.
So by the Church’s method of identifying the nature of the sexual acts, couple 1 is engaging in acts ordered towards procreation and couple 2 is not. Yet couple 1’s acts of intercourse have no possibility of resulting in procreation and couple 2’s acts have in fact resulted in procreation.
Another angle that shows the somewhat arbitrary and incomplete way the Church defines the nature of acts is to think about the guidelines that the Church gives couple 1. The Church would insist that couple 1 not engage in any complete sexual acts other than intercourse because these are not ordered towards procreation. But what possible meaning could these restrictions have for couple 1? No matter how they engage one another sexually it will never result in procreation; none of their acts are any more or less procreative than others. So unless their non-intercourse sexual acts were causing harm in some other way, what sense do these restrictions make?
Last thing: You said that, “all same-sex sexual acts, in fact, “by nature” achieve their intrinsic finality–non-procreativity.” I think you can say that there acts are not ordered towards procreation, but I think it is inaccurate to say that they are ordered to non-procreativity. Not procreating is not the primary end of such acts; rather their primary end is the building up of love.
Why do you say that a same sex couple cannot achieve either end of marriage? The procreative part is clear, but why not the building up of love?
Because marriage is supposed to be a FULL and total giving of one’s self – body and soul – to one’s spouse. This includes fertility, which is part of a person.
You seem to get hung up on the difference between circumstance and *choice*. Few people choose to have a biological abnormality that renders them infertile. Some, unfortunately, choose to be sterilized. However, it is a biological impossibility for two men or two women to reproduce with one another naturally.
Because children are part of the vocation of marriage, and the ultimate personification of marital love and an integral, non-negotiable part of what builds up that love, that part is *always* missing from same-sex relationships.
However, the Church is clear on her teachings: Sexual intercourse is reserved for marriage, and meant to be conducted in such a way that it *always* completes in traditional intercourse open to the possibility of life. Other sexual acts that lead to climax outside that mode are not licit because they either do not fulfill the unitive or the procreative (or both) parameters of sexuality within a marriage.
You seem to get hung up on the difference between circumstance and *choice*. Few people choose to have a biological abnormality that renders them infertile.
I’m unclear; are you impying that gays and lesbians “choose” their homosexual orientation?
However, it is a biological impossibility for two men or two women to reproduce with one another naturally.
It is also a biological impossibility for a woman without a uterus to to reproduce with anyone.
—
In the Euthyphro Socrates asks, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” The Christian answer to that question has always been that God’s will for us is not arbirary; God wills for us to do those things that are in conformity with our good as human beings, and he wills us to refrain from those things that are not in conformity with our good. This leads me to question whether we can define anything as being evil by nature apart from some negative impact it has upon us (physically, socially, or spiritually). What I am looking for is for someone to show me what harm is being done on any one of those levels by two people of the same sex joining together in a lifelong, monogamous union that includes sexual relations. I will remain unconvinced on this issue until I see clear evidence of such harm. (Even if the harm is primarily on a spiritual level, we should see evidence of this in the lives of homosexual couples.)
I’m unclear; are you impying that gays and lesbians “choose” their homosexual orientation?
No. But they do *choose* their behavior. The Church teaches same-sex attraction (SSA) is no different sin-wise than heterosexual attraction. But any sexual activity (gay or straight) outside the confines of a marriage that’s open to life is fornication and sinful. The same standard applies to me, to you, to anyone. Sex is reserved for marriage. PERIOD.
It is also a biological impossibility for a woman without a uterus to to reproduce with anyone.
And, again, your inability to distinguish behavior from circumstance. *How* did this woman lose her uterus? Cancer? Infection? Some other life-threatening complication or some illness?
In that case – it’s not her fault. She had no control over those circumstances.
Now, if she willfully chose to remove her uterus, she committed a grave sin and messed with nature. Repentance is definitely needed. However, she is still, biologically, a woman and still able to marry in the eyes of the Church.
I know that you’re probably just going to rehash the “straights who are infertile shouldn’t marry!” argument again and again in an attempt to try and equate sterility (involuntary or otherwise) with homosexuality and marriage. But it’s not going to work.
If you’re still confused, I recommend the Catechism.
“I believe it is presumptuous to declare that every single person with a permanent homosexual orientation is called by God to live a life of celibacy. As anyone who has ever contemplated or discerned a religious vocation knows, the call to celibacy is not something that can be determined by a formula or declaration.”
Celibacy is a state in life that is most often determined by circumstance, rather than vow, I think. (There certainly are and have been many single people who would have preferred to marry, given the opportunity.) No one is forcing a religious vow on a secular state of celibacy. But the Church does expect everyone to live chastely, according to their state.
And who presumes that a person has a permanent homosexual orientation? Same-sex “marriage”, because it would be a lie, doesn’t offer real hope to a person with same-sex attractions.The position of the Church on the plight of those with same-sex marriages is one of mercy, whereas, the “friends” who wish to eliminate the suffering of SSA by offering a false solution are not, in the long run, helping.
Devon,
Marriage is for both procreation and the building up of love. Note the “and.” There is no “or” there. Procreation AND union in love. The two are not separable. Marriage is by definition that sort of relationship where the union in love is deepened by the procreative act of sexual intercourse and that sort of relationship where procreation is made holy by a growing mutuality and complementarity that mirrors Christ’s love for his bride, the Church. There is simply no way Christian way to wedge same-sex relationships into this definition. We can play Jesuitical games with cases all day. And even if we agree that the Church’s definitions are somewhat vague, or maybe a little inconsistent…all we’re agreeing to is that we don’t have the perfectly tuned picture of all Truth just yet. What we do know quite clearly is that a same-sex couple may not be “married” in any Christian sense of the term. There is no equivalence of any kind btw a loving, procreative heterosexual marriage and a same-sex relationship. Can same-sex couples love one another? In some sense, yes. But whatever that love might be, it cannot be that sort of love that leads to, enables, nourishes, and maintains the relationship btw a man and a woman that blesses with the creation of children.
Fr. Philip, OP
Jeff, I love the church too, but you’re missing something. The church is at fault in a BIG way for the state things are in now.
First, where was the big uproar when conservative icon Reagan signed the “no fault” divorce into law? So far, I haven’t found a single quote from any California bishop on this during 1969. A clear sin of omission.
Second, annulments lead to divorce. My current life situation displays that obviously as my wife has unilaterally (no fault, right?) decided that “we never had a sacramentally valid marriage” so I guess that makes it ok to rip apart this family, make the children nomads, so she can date our eldest child’s godfather. Think I’m one case? I can easily produce hundreds of recent cases of “good” Catholics like mine suffering the same fate. However, guess what happens when you talk to a priest about this – 4 out of 5 time you automatically get advice and offers of assistance to pursue annulment. And that is just after I have told them of my fidelity and commitment to the sacrament in it’s full meaning. As a group, I’m telling you, they don’t get it. How could that be? Something is wrong here. What could cause this?
Third, the cause is an outcome of the mass corruption of the priesthood. I’m not getting all pre-VII or conspiracy nut. The corruption I speak of is the sexual scandal that came to light this decade, but began far earlier reaching it’s peak in the 60’s. The priesthood has been experiencing the pain of broken vows, scandal and infidelity – often in the first person. At a deep level, this is how they relate to the problems in marriages. They suffer from cowardice and lack the courage of their convictions because they too are in the same situation. There has been a SERIOUS weakening of the priesthood and religious life, which in turn leads to weakened leadership. Instead of presenting a strong and faithful front, they too question their vows.
To sum up, the church (at least in America) didn’t stand up to stop divorce, and in a round about, two-faced way, encourages it because of their own (collective) moral compromise. The corruption of holy orders has led to the corruption of marriage.
Yes, there are vague assertions and generalizations, and I’m sure some one who is a better thinker and writer would put this thought together coherently, however, my basic points are right. Catholic thought is the highest and clearest moral thought ever seen in human history, but how things are going down here in the gutter is different – and something smells funny.
Devon,
I made it clear that though the Church recognizes that some heterosexual marriages may not be able to be procreative, the procreative potential and intent is there. IOW, the inability to procreate in these couples is a flaw in their biology. The inability of same-sex couples to be procreative is not a flaw. It’s their biology. They have to resort to decidedly artificial means to produce children.
As a philosophy grad student and so-to-be philosophy professor, I’m well-aware of the fallacy of question begging. I’m also aware of a fallacy called proof by failure to refute. Even if we couldn’t answer your question about the harm of same-sex marriages, that is no proof that same-sex marriages aren’t harmful. IOW, our failure to prove the harm of same-sex marriages in no way entails their harmlessness.
The 5,000 year old tradition of marriage is heterosexual. You want to change that. The burden of proof is on you to argue for the change. How is it that we have survived as a human civilization for more than 5,000 years and there not a single example of same-sex marriage in the historical record?
From what I can tell, your definition of marriage is no definition at all. If any pairing of individuals can be called a marriage, then there is no way to distinguish a marriage from any other sort of coupling. How precisely is marriage different from dating, hooking-up, friends-with-benefits? The point of marriage in the Catholic tradition is that it is a sacramental sign of Christ relationship to his bride, the Church. That sign is voided in a same-sex “marriage.”
Fr. Philip
Jeff, I don’t think the Catholic Church has any business accusing the Protestants of being soft on divorce.
Fr. Philip,
How is it that we have survived as a human civilization for more than 5,000 years and there is not a single example of same-sex marriage in the historical record?
It is simply incorrect to say that there aren’t historical examples. See this book review for some examples. There are others also in non-Western cultures.
We also have many contemporaray examples where it is working. I agree with you that long standing traditions and institutions should be changed slowly and cautiously. But it seems to me that many in the Church are unwilling to even look at the evidence (i.e. the experience of committed same-sex couples) and consider the possibility of making a change.
Even if we couldn’t answer your question about the harm of same-sex marriages, that is no proof that same-sex marriages aren’t harmful. IOW, our failure to prove the harm of same-sex marriages in no way entails their harmlessness.
You are right that the abscence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. But pointing this out does not end the debate. If we truly believe that our God’s commandments are not merely arbitrary and are in fact based on what is best for us given the sort of creatures that we are, we should be able to point to some concrete way that a prohibition of same-sex unions serves our good.
The point of marriage in the Catholic tradition is that it is a sacramental sign of Christ relationship to his bride, the Church. That sign is voided in a same-sex “marriage.”
I’ve always found this argument to be weak. While Jesus was undoubtedly male in his incarnation, his maleness was not a requirement for our salvation. God could just as easily have been incarnated as a woman. As the catechism affirms, God is neither male nor female. And there is no reason why the Church must always be symbolized as a woman. It is the loving bond that is the sacramental sign, not the pairing of genders.
BTW- I sincerely appreciate your willingness to engage me in thoughtful debate. Too often I have had the experience of simpling being denounced and condemned when I try to think through these things with people.
Although I agree with the author on all his points about the destructive trends running against marriage, I would like to use an example of the difference with same-sex “marriage” as a matter of law.
Regarding divorce as a matter of civil law. To draw the proper analogy with same-sex “marriage” – it would not be no-fault divorce. While this does undermine (and has done so) the permanent nature of marriage, it does not necessarily do so. That is- while making marriage easier to get out of, it does not attack (necessarily) the philosophical concept of permanence.
The better analogy with divorce & same-sex “marriage” would be a proposal actually introduced in several European parliaments. The proposal would be to make marriage licenses automatically expire every so many years (5 -10?) if not intentionally renewed.
This “change” undermines completely the very idea of permanence in marriage. It undermines the very concept that it is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. (rather than no-fault divorce that says it an easy to get out of lifelong commitment)
In this way: that proposal is more like same-sex “marriage” in that the very change itself is a direct attack on the philosophical concept marriage.
“I’ve always found this argument to be weak. While Jesus was undoubtedly male in his incarnation, his maleness was not a requirement for our salvation. God could just as easily have been incarnated as a woman. As the catechism affirms, God is neither male nor female. And there is no reason why the Church must always be symbolized as a woman. It is the loving bond that is the sacramental sign, not the pairing of genders.
Simply contrary to the scripture, tradition, reason, and the Magesterium..
It is not the “loving bond” that is the sacremental bond but rather the “one flesh union” that alone can produce life. In this way the creator endowes creation with the same mysterious power to create that he himself commands.
You are incorect on a number of points. Taken together they represent a complete departure from Christianity as understood through the Apostles
Second, annulments lead to divorce. My current life situation displays that obviously as my wife has unilaterally (no fault, right?) decided that “we never had a sacramentally valid marriage” so I guess that makes it ok to rip apart this family, make the children nomads, so she can date our eldest child’s godfather. Think I’m one case? I can easily produce hundreds of recent cases of “good” Catholics like mine suffering the same fate. However, guess what happens when you talk to a priest about this – 4 out of 5 time you automatically get advice and offers of assistance to pursue annulment. And that is just after I have told them of my fidelity and commitment to the sacrament in it’s full meaning. As a group, I’m telling you, they don’t get it. How could that be? Something is wrong here. What could cause this?
What do you think the priest is going to tell you? Your ex-wife is clearly not committed to your marriage. Do you think that you can simply wait around and pray for her to see the light and change her mind?
Look… you contacted the priest(s) to express your dissatisfaction with the state of affairs as it currently exists. The priest(s) understand, since they have experience with counseling a wide range of couples, that there comes a time when it’s best to quit trying and get on with life.
You can get an annulment or not. You can get a civil divorce… and you might want to in order to protect your own property… or not. The one thing you cannot do is force or persuade your ex-wife to return to your marriage if she does not want to do that.
It’s good that you tried so hard. But now, it’s obviously time to move on. You have only good things awaiting you once you get yourself out of the situation you’ve described. I don’t mean dating and eventual remarriage, either. You can be a good father to your children, for one thing. You could possibly consider working together with like-minded others to change the no-fault divorce laws if you really want to. Or you could involve yourself in some aspect of the Catholic community and work for its goals. There are plenty of opportunities for service, particularly for a single man. Get out there and find them!
Uni-lateral divorce:
My heart goes out to you. It is outrageous that a priest would advise annulment.
Surely, for the sake of the family and especially the children, counseling and perhaps temporary separation or other solutions should be considered first. Most marriages have difficult periods where prayer and patience pays off.
As Catholics we find comfort in the Lord and his Church even when many priests fall short in their pastoral duties.
God bless!
My Euthyphro challenge stands. I’m still waiting for someone to show me the harm that God would be trying to prevent by forbidding same-sex marriages.
Fr. Philip has already pointed out the logical fallacy you made, but I would also add that your reasoning is following the pattern of:
(1) God reasons like a secular 19th century utilitarian philosopher.
(2) God’s reason is accessible to man.
(3) Therefore by (1) and (2) man can reason like a secular 19th century utilitarian philosopher and substitute his will for God’s.
(4) By (3) there’s nothing wrong with sodomy, as the original utilitarian Bentham already said.
An argument like that won’t get far around here.
Hippolytus: It may be fine to defend doctrine and dogma by claiming that God’s reason is not accessible to man. But it not acceptable to base public policy on it. Marriage law should be considered using the Social Contract Theory, and not religious doctrine, Why should the tenants of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism (and which religion should the state champion) be the basis of law in a secular society?
Hippolytus,
Re: (1) God reasons like a secular 19th century utilitarian philosopher.
Recall that when I asked someone to identify the harm caused by a monogamous, life-long homosexual relationship I specifically said that the harm could be physical, social, or spiritual. I don’t seem to recall any 19th century utilitarians running around worried about the purely spiritual harm that might come from actions.
Re: (2) God’s reason is accessible to man.
To the extent that the Church claims that its teachings on homosexual relations reflect the natural law, the reasons for that teaching should be accessible to man. After all, the Church teaches that the natural law is discoverable by reason.
Sehr wertvolle Informationen! Empfehlen!