Tuesday, May 2, 2006

Creighton University Prof's Argue for Morality of Same Sex Acts

First of all, since when has it been termed the "New" Natural Law theory? Did I miss something? Secondly what is "genital-biological complementarity"(or do I even want to know)?

Of course, I also notice that the Christian aspect of Natural law isn't addressed here.

In the Heythrop Journal, here is an abstract:

The New Natural Law Theory (NNLT) argues against the morality (and
legality) of same sex-unions on the basis that homosexual (and non-reproductive
heterosexual) acts are unnatural, unreasonable, and therefore immoral. In this
paper, we explore and critique the foundational principles – biological and
personal complementarity, their subcategories, and the interrelationship between
them – that the NNLT uses to justify its claim. We propose alternative
principles – orientation, personal, and genital-biological complementarity, with
a distinct interrelationship – to argue that homosexual couples can engage in
sexual acts that are natural, reasonable, and therefore moral. Our study clearly
demonstrates that for the NNLT genital complementarity, a subcategory of
biological complementarity, is the sine qua non for personal complementarity. In
other words, personal complementarity within a sexual act is only possible if
there is genital complementarity between male and female. We believe that the
NNLT's foundational principles reflect too narrow an understanding of the human
person and human sexuality. Instead, we propose "holistic complementarity" as
the fully human integration of orientation, personal, and genital-biological
complementarity. What defines a natural, reasonable, and moral sexual act is not
genital complementarity as the foundational principle, but a dialectic between
these three principles of complementarity.

4 comments:

  1. I have a thesis that continues to be supported: The "orthodox" vs. liberal Catholic dialectic is a canard. The dynamics are conservative vs. liberal and orthodoxy mixes in occasionally.

    I note the lack of critique when a conservative site, Catholic Exchange, publishes heterodoxy from a conservative blogger and writer.

    http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=29408

    ReplyDelete
  2. In your opinion, what was hetrodox in the article?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The article stated that a foundational reason for the use of the death penalty could be the reduction in murders that came a as consequence, of executing individuals. An individual is not executed for his own crimes, but executed for another's potential crimes. This creates the utilitarian arrangement of a criminal's particular death.

    Society creates, in essence, what I term the corpse count calculus-how many criminals do we execute to prevent one murder-again the using the death penalty for societal utility.

    Current catechism on the matter indicates that a government is permitted to execute an individual to protect itself from that individual (if no other means are available to protect the socety from that individual). The execution is based on the criminal's own actions, not on another's actions that would be prevented.

    This article wishes to create a new foundational aspect by which a government can choose to execute a criminal based on the potential to alter another's actions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The article stated that a foundational reason for the use of the death penalty could be the reduction in murders that came a as consequence, of executing individuals. An individual is not executed for his own crimes, but executed for another's potential crimes. This creates the utilitarian arrangement of a criminal's particular death.

    Society creates, in essence, what I term the corpse count calculus-how many criminals do we execute to prevent one murder-again the using the death penalty for societal utility.

    Current catechism on the matter indicates that a government is permitted to execute an individual to protect itself from that individual (if no other means are available to protect the socety from that individual). The execution is based on the criminal's own actions, not on another's actions that would be prevented.

    This article wishes to create a new foundational aspect by which a government can choose to execute a criminal based on the potential to alter another's actions.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.