At Scotist's place, Father Harding and Scotist actually seem to be having a reasonable approximation to a conversation, so I'll contribute a reply to one of Father Harding's key points: it doesn't matter that fratrimony and sororimony bear fruit if they are not part of God's natural and normative intention for creation.
To which I reply by appeal to the construction of Summa Theologica (S3.41.1):
Are fratrimony and sororimony natural institutions?
Objections:
1. Animals are not united in fratrimony and sororimony, yet animals know the natural law by instinct.
2. Natural law has existed during the entire cultural evolution of man, but fratrimony and sororimony are only found in particular times and places.
3. Most law does not recognize fratrimony and sororimony, yet the natural law should be the common foundation of human law.
4. Fratrimony and sororimony does not contribute to the reproduction of the species, so it does not further any purpose of the natural law, so it cannot be part of the natural law.
Aquinas claims that matrimony is according to natural law by citing the Digest “The union of male and female, which we call matrimony, is of natural law” and notes Aristotle in the Ethics says man is inclined to both political and connubial society. We do not escape so easily.
But let us consider the Digest (1.1.1.3) (my translation), “Ius naturale est, quod natura omnia animalia docuit: nam ius istud non humani generis proprium, sed omnium animalium, quae in terra, quae in mari nascuntur, avium quoque commune est. hinc descendit maris atque feminae coniunctio, quam nos matrimonium appellamus, hinc liberorum procreatio, hinc educatio: videmus etenim cetera quoque animalia, feras etiam istius iuris peritia censeri. (Natural law is that which nature has taught all the animals, for that law is not specific to the human race but is common to all of the animals on the land or that swim in the sea and to the birds. From this source originates the union (lit. yoking together) of man and woman which we call matrimony, from here originates the procreation of children, from here originates their education; for we see the other animals, even the wildest of them, yielding to the obligation of that law.)
The key I answer is that human beings may call certain institutions natural which have some being among the animals. The word descendit literally means “comes down [to us].” I think Ulpian chose descendit to suggest there is some evolution between maris atque feminae coniunctio , and matrimony since Ulpian would know enough natural history to hear of birds and elephants mating for life but would not be surprised about various monkeys making frequent change in sexual partners. Matrimonium is natural in origin but is somehow regularized in the context of the human species. Since the union of man and man (or woman and woman) takes place among the animals, (e.g. the penguins , and penguins are one among hundreds of examples), any institution regularized in the human context involving same sex unions would be natural in the framework of Ulpian.
If I really need a pagan philosopher to back me, I will call on Aristophanes’ creation myth in Plato’s Symposium . I then argue that if man is inclined to connubial society as Aristotle says, and there is such a thing as homosexual orientation (which many deny), an inclination to connubial society of the same sex would be logical and natural.
But Aquinas’ answer phase leads us into further trouble, since he sees matrimony as part of a stronger understanding of natural law as mediated by human free will, since it gives to children definite parents, thus improving their chance of survival. Second, it provides benefits to human society through the exchange of goods and services between the married individuals, who as Plato said in the Republic (Aquinas uses Aristotle but the discussion of this subject in the Politics is similar) are “not self-sufficient but are in need of much.”
The second assertion is less of a problem since the same mutual exchange of goods and services is possible in a same-sex household as in a traditionally married one. The only difference I can see is based on complementary gender roles in economic production, which is both naturally and socially constructed and is unimportant in practice.
The first assertion is a strong argument against same sex unions being according to nature. Traditional marriage certainly better serves the ends of natural law by bringing children into the care of both of their biological parents. But where Aquinas and the ancients see the strength of their kind of natural law, we as moderns rccognize the rearing of children as part of the biological imperative developed by the stress of natural selection. For us, natural law is broader and deeper but still deeply ingrained in matter and bodies.
One controversy of homosexuality is that it appears to defy the usual rules of natural selection. If this is true (and not a genetic artifact of the closet) and homosexual orientation is a product of nature rather than culture, homosexuality must further some intention of natural law as expressed through natural selection. Certainly, natural law is not obeyed through homosexual promiscuity, since there is the spread of disease to consider. It could be furthered by celibacy as well. But it is also possible that same-sex orientation exists to provide spare parents for children. There may be a link between a woman’s fertility and the sexual orientation of her brother, where there would be a greater need for such a backup. Moreover, we cannot believe that homosexual orientation would exist (if it does exist naturally) if it were not meant to be expressed according to its end, which is apparently unitive. Thus, some form of same sex acts should be according to nature. And if promiscuity is not according to nature, then we are left to conclude that same sex unions are according to nature.
As for the replies to the objections, Aquinas’ first reply is agreeable if we use our interpretation of Ulpian and the possible relevance of homosexuality to the rearing of children. His second reply refers to Genesis as evidence that matrimony is a primal institution among men. Before I start sputtering, let me say that I have no doubt that traditional marriage was prior to same sex union as a natural institution, since one must bear children before they have a need for rearing (and backup plans). Moreover, the first evidence of matrimony in the Scriptures is Genesis, whereas we first hear of a same sex union in 1 Samuel 18. Father Haller notes quite convincingly the parallelism between the language used by Saul and the language of Genesis in the comments to his post. . Moreover, since we do not know how homosexuality furthers the ends of natural law, how could we expect any people in an earlier stage of cultural evolution to know? Thus, same sex unions may not have existed in earlier stages of human cultural evolution, though the prohibitions of the legislators of many peoples suggest homosexual acts have been known for a long time. The third reply is agreeable to our argument. The fourth reply again refers to the benefits to children of two parents, and although there are certain things parents in a same sex union cannot do, the response to a stressor of a child under the care of same-sex parents is surely much better than a child devoid of all parents. The children in a same sex union thus, I argue, constitute an attempt to perfect being in an imperfect world of many vicissitudes.
Thus I argue (with some uncertain premises) that same sex unions are according to nature. QED.
1 comment:
I think it has become clear for me that no matter how much I love Jesus, try to grow in virtue by God's grace, contribute to the community some folks will always see me as nothing but a "special pleading", which in its phrasing reveals a lot about one's image of God. The God of the Jews and Jesus is one that we can argue with and plead with and who often hears the special pleadings of the afflicted, but not so the god of many systems in which God must simply be obeyed and the rules are set rather than creative matrix.
I don't fit the neat systems some erect, and because I don't fit, no matter what I do or don't do, deep down the only answer is my non-existence. I don't think it an accident that when totalitarian regimes come to power, one of the first groups that the new policies are tested on are homosexuals. That the Church has mostly gone along with this tells me, that I cannot rely on the Church as a whole when they come for those like me. The "we" of the Church in most places does not include queer folk no matter our baptism, our service, our leadership. So, it's better to quit asking permission from these folks to exist and get on with life whether or not they own the marred and frightful images of god that often lurk beneath their neat systems.
And how does one prove or disprove homosexuality as an orientation anymore than heterosexuality. I suspect the truth is more along a continuum, and that it would be who of us to encourage those virtues of commitment, fidelity and the like irrespective of where we fall along the continuum.
As for what do we exist for? The answer is love, first and foremost. ++Williams made a good point that homosexual love is not in the first place productive except to produce the two partners in great virtue and love--and that is no small feat. Now that fecundity and generativity to be full and unitve must as Elizabeth Stuart argues break forth in hospitality toward others. We see this even in the animal world with male penguin or swan couples adopting or stealing the eggs of others :) It would seem that having some spares around who contribute in other ways--including culturally is not a bad thing.
The problem with even Aquinas is a production-orientation that to many uptake from his system. What of the married heterosexuals who never have children, are infertile or give their lives in so many other ways? What of C and I? Unless God does some miracle, I doubt we'll ever have children ourselves. Does that invalidate our union? Make us unholy? Not fruitful? I know that Aquinas would argue that the charge be fruitful and multiply is to the entire species, and so individuals need not themselves do so, but as a race we must. But are we not fruitful in other ways? Building up the common good in ways other than raising children? I think that considering the virtue of hospitality might be a better place to start in considering the place of homosexuality in the law of nature.
I find your points here compelling though, and as always, in what you write, I recognize something of myself.
BTW: I couldn't get your link to Fr. Haller to work.
Post a Comment