Friday, August 28, 2009

A comment at CathNews on gaymarriage

Here is a comment which I submitted a short time ago at CathNews (note that the webpage to which Mr. Lawson linked was the laughable Frequently Asked Questions section of the Australian Marriage Equality website, and "said Archbishop Desmond Tutu" was the commenter name supplied by someone for a quotation from the pseudobishop):


Mr. Lawson,

As it happens, at my blog a couple of months ago I refuted the arguments accessible by the link which you provide. The link to my rebuttal is

said Archbishop Demond Tutu,

Here is a confutation of Dr. Tutu's arguments:

1. He says that

"If it is so [that the love between a husband and a wife is more than just Platonic] for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual, provided the relationship is exclusive, not promiscuous?"

The "earthly reason" is that sex suits the nature of a man and of a woman and hence is, in the right circumstances, good, whereas the various natural-law-defying, pseudo-sexual things which same-sex 'partners' do to each other suit no-one's nature and deprive them of the natural good and are therefore evil. Indeed, these acts are intrinsically evil, since an intrinsically evil act is one which is an abuse of the faculty from which it proceeds, and is wrong in all circumstances.

2. He says that

"We say that sexual orientation is morally a matter of indifference, but what is culpable are homosexual acts. But then we claim that sexuality is a divine gift, which used properly, helps us to become more fully human and akin really to God ..."

The key words there are "which used properly". There are proper uses of bodily organs, and there are improper uses, or abuses--*ab*uses--of bodily organs, and as I said in 1., when an act is an abuse of the faculty from which it proceeds it is intrinsically evil.

"Why should we want all homosexual persons not to give expression to their sexuality in loving acts?"

This is defective in two respects. Love means desiring the highest good for another, and the good is that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it, so natural-law-defying acts are not loving acts. Furthermore, there are proper expressions and improper expressions. Bashing someone up might be a powerful 'expression' of one's strength and vitality, but it's hardly proper.

"Why don't we use the same criteria to judge same-sex relationships that we use to judge whether heterosexual relationships are wholesome or not?"

We do use the same criteria:

2.1 The good is that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it.
2.2 Evil is a deprivation of the natural good.
2.3 Do good and avoid evil.

Where's the inconsistency?

3. He says that

"[He] was left deeply disturbed by these inconsistencies and knew that the Lord of the Church would not be where his church is in this matter."

I do not have time to chase up chapter and verse, but Our Lord said "If you love Me, keep My commandments"--in other words, if you love Him, keep the natural law which He has inscribed on your hearts.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
[approx. 0140hrs., Sydney time, 28.VIII.2009]
Thankyou for your comments.


Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Augustine of Hippo, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2009

No comments: