Instead, the Church teaches that each male should accept his sexual identity as a man, and each female her sexual identity as a woman; and that means accepting that one is different from and "Homosexual persons" to — and equal in dignity with -- persons of the opposite sex gender.
Very many homosexual persons — persons with homosexual inclinations — marry and have children by their spouse. Not all do, and there are some, relatively quite few, who have a sexual urge but Homosexual persons the psycho-physical capacity for marital intercourse. The reason why even the most deep-seated homosexual tendency must be called disordered is straightforward. But the inclination is precisely an inclination to choose a homosexual act — a sex act
Homosexual persons a person of the same sex.
And, like every other kind of non-marital sex act, any and every homosexual act is a seriously disordered kind of activity which, if freely and deliberately chosen, is a serious sin. An inclination which one cannot choose to pursue without Homosexual persons moral evil is obviously a disordered inclination.
This is a moral doctrine, a teaching about what is right or wronggood or worthless and harmfuland choiceworthy or sinful. From its earliest years, the Church has understood its moral doctrine as not only a matter of faith but also fully in line with human nature. St Paul teaches clearly about this in his letter to the Romans Rom. But Jesus has already made the point Homosexual persons his Homosexual persons teachings on human sexual identity Matt. As Jesus makes clear, this natural communion requires for its integrity not only the sexual intercourse of the spouses Matt.
I shall show, below, why this must be so. Some of the greatest theologians and philosophers have explained the relationship between human nature, the natural world as a whole, and the truths of morality. Morality concerns, not what simply is or is deep-seated or usual, but rather the good, and the various kinds of Homosexual persons goodswhich should be sought, chosen, and done.
Everything that should be, and is choiceworthy, is natural and grounded in the givens of human nature. But not everything we find in our nature is a pointer to what is good, choiceworthy and reasonable. The way these inclinations originate in a particular person does not affect the fact that, insofar as they incline that person towards sex acts with persons of the same sex, they incline not towards but away from authentic fulfillment.
Human fulfillment consists in the actualizing, in the lives of persons and their communities, those basic human goods towards which the first principles of practical reason — the very foundations of conscience -- direct us. Homosexual persons interdependent, these goods can also be properly described as two aspects of a single basic human good, the good of marriage itself. The whole Christian teaching on sex has, from the beginning, done no more, and no less, than point out the ways in which every kind of sex act, other than Homosexual persons marital intercourse, is opposed to the good of marriage.
The more distant a kind of sex act is from the marital kind, the more seriously disordered and, in itself, immoral it is. How do non-marital sex acts oppose the good of marriage? The next few paragraphs sketch one kind of answer to that question. It is only one of many ways in which the question has been answered. In Christian marriage the personality, individuality and equality of the spouses is fully respected. The marital communion is not a submerging of the two persons into one.
But it is a communion, a bringing-together of their wills in their mutual Homosexual persons of their wills and minds in shared understanding and faith and hope; of their wills, minds and feelings in shared joys, cares, and sadnesses; and of their wills, minds, feelings and bodies in sexual intercourse. That intercourse, when it is truly marital, enables them to experience and actualize their mutual commitment and communion at all levels of their being: These two conditions are also inter-linked.
Only an act of the generative kind in the sense "Homosexual persons" specified truly unites the spouses at all levels, biologically as well as at the level of feelings and intentions. This is a real biological unity even if, as is usually the case, the couple in fact cannot, at the time of intercourse, bring about actual generation of new life.
For in reproduction a mating pair function as a single organism. In respect of all organic functions, from thinking to digesting, each human being is am entirely individual organism.
So in an act of the generative kind, whether or not it results on a particular occasion in actual generation, there is more "Homosexual persons" merely a particular juxtaposition of members and sequence of movements.
This is the one-flesh unity which Jesus, recalling Genesis, makes foundational to his teaching on marriage, and on sexual desires, choices, and actions in their relation, right or wrong, to marriage understood as Homosexual persons two persons, male and female, in one flesh. That, in short, is why in marital intercourse a married couple can express their commitment, and can really, not merely in imagination, actualize and experience their marriage.
The conditions under which a sexual transaction between spouses can amount to marital intercourse are, to repeat, of two kinds. Their chosen behavior must be an act of the generative kind taken on each occasion as a whole sequence of preparatory, consummatory and confirmatoryand their intentions and wills must also be united in service of the marital good instantiated in their exclusive and permanent commitment to each other in marriage.
Think of someone whose frame of mind is: Such a person is disabled by that frame of mind from making and carrying through
Homosexual persons truly marital choice to engage in intercourse.
In the technical phrase of the theologians, this person is engaging in Homosexual persons for pleasure alone. His or her act of intercourse is depersonalized, not an act of marital friendship. That is why the Church teaches that such a choice is always morally flawed; and in some kinds of instance it is a serious sin against the integrity and authenticity of marriage Homosexual persons marital life.
The good of marriage is an intrinsic good, not a mere means to any other end. But it is also true that the well-being of children greatly depends upon the marital commitment of their parents. As that commitment tends to be strengthened by marital intercourse which respects the integrity and authenticity — the purity — of their marriage, so too it is weakened at its heart by intercourse which is not truly maritalbut rather expressive of self-indulgence.
So anyone who thinks clearly, has the well-being of children at heart, and recognizes the good of marital communion, will judge wrongful every kind of sex act which is not truly marital. And there is another, not unrelated kind of reason for the very same moral judgment. One cannot engage in truly marital intercourse if one is willing, even conditionally willing, to engage in this sort of behavior deliberate sexual stimulation towards orgasm outside marriage or in one or other of the non-marital ways.
But this can be no more than an illusion, which rational reflection punctures. That is why such a willingness saps "Homosexual persons" at its core. And 2 it is a form of conditional willingness to engage in
Homosexual persons acts. Therefore, it entails necessarily implies also 3 that married couples, spouses, should approve of and be conditionally willing to perform non-marital acts.
But such a conclusion is directly opposed to the good of marriage, of the spouses as committed friends, and of any children who may have resulted from their marital union and be dependent upon the purity which is near the heart of its stability and its appropriateness as the context for nurture and education.
Homosexual sex acts, even between people who could never consummate a marriage and who wish, at the time, to be committed to each other in a lifelong friendship, can never be marital. To judge them morally acceptable — to condone them -- is opposed to the good of marriage, a basic human good. So they cannot reasonably be judged morally acceptable. The relationship of same-sex couples can never be marriage.
The easiest way to see this is to ask oneself Homosexual persons same-sex sex acts should be restricted to couples rather than three-somes, four-somes, etc. Nothing Homosexual persons the gay ideology can, or even seriously tries, to explain or defend the exclusiveness or permanence of same-sex partnerships or their limitation to couples.