Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Is Sodomy Against Nature? A Thomistic Appraisal

2015; Wiley; Volume: 56; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/heyj.12246

1468-2265

John Skalko,

Environmental Philosophy and Ethics

The Heythrop JournalVolume 56, Issue 5 p. 759-768 ARTICLE Is Sodomy Against Nature? A Thomistic Appraisal John Skalko, John Skalko University of St. Thomas, Houston, TexasSearch for more papers by this author John Skalko, John Skalko University of St. Thomas, Houston, TexasSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 January 2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.12246Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Notes 1 This is only one species of ‘sins against nature.’ I grant that there are other species of ‘sins against nature’ such as bestiality (cf. ST II-II, Q154, A11). I have chosen to focus on the species called sodomy for two reasons. First, there has been much more written on sodomy than on the other three Thomistic species of ‘sins against nature.’ Second, among ‘sins against nature,’ sodomy is the species about which there is currently the most controversy over whether or not it is truly ‘against nature.’ Thus, there is a great need to clarify in what sense sodomy is said to be ‘against nature’ in order to avoid unfortunate mischaracterizations and unhelpful arguments in ongoing discussions of this hotly debated issue. 2 Cf. Aquinas' definition of it in ST II-II, Q154, A11. In this article, I am not using the term in the legal sense, which is often defined as to include anal or oral sex. The legal definition is broader than Aquinas'. Sodomy in the legal sense can occur not only between two people of the same-sex but also between two people of the opposite-sex. Aquinas' sense of sodomy, however, by definition only occurs between two people of the same-sex. 3 Burton Leiser, “Homosexuality and the ‘Unnaturalness Argument’” Leiser, section 1, accessed October 17, 2013, http://faculty.cbu.ca/sstewart/sexlove/leiser.htm. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid, section 2. 7 Aristotle. Physics, 199b24-25, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Modern Library, 2001). Aristotle of course has other senses of nature, but I merely wish to point out this one, as it has been brought up by John Corvino and John McNeill to show that the phrase ‘against nature’ is either unintelligible or unreasonable when applied to sodomy. 8 Physics, 199b1-24. 9 Burton Leiser, “‘Homosexuality and the ‘Unnaturalness Argument’” Leiser, section 3, accessed October 17, 2013, http://faculty.cbu.ca/sstewart/sexlove/leiser.htm. 10 John Corvino, ‘Homosexuality and the PIB Argument,’ Ethics 115, no. 3 (April 2005): 78. 11 John J. McNeill, S.J., The Church and the Homosexual (New York: Pocket Books, 1976), 116. 12 Ibid., 116. 13 Andrew Sullivan has a similar argument to show that sodomy is not unnatural. He says that in nature there is lots of sodomy that occurs naturally. By ‘sodomy’ here he means to include things like sexual intercourse during the naturally infertile periods of a woman's cycle. Thus, he really uses ‘sodomy’ in an imprecise and mistaken sense, as this is not the true or correct definition of sodomy. See: ‘Unnatural Law,’ The New Republic, March 24, 2003, 21. 14 This is according to Armand Maurer's translation and chapter divisions. 15 The English translation is my own. The Latin is as follows from the Pauline: Et hoc modo Boetius naturam definit, in libro de Duabus Naturis, dicens: Natura est unamquamque rem informams specifica differentia, quae scilicet complet definitionem speciei (Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Summae Theologiae (Rome: Editiones Paulinae, 1962)). 16 Individual nature in this section is not to be understood as the essence of an individual, such as the essence of Socrates (cf. SCG I, 65, 3 and De Ente et Essentia Chapter 2, 4-5, Armand A. Maurer, trans. 2nd ed. (The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1991), 36-37.). The sense of individual nature that Sullivan is discussing is that of an intrinsic tendency towards some end. This tendency can be intrinsic due to habit (cf. ST I-II, Q31, A7) or temperament (cf. ST I-II, Q51, A1). 17 Romans 1:26-27. 18 ST II-II, Q154, A11. 19 Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), 28, 33. 20 Ibid., 33. 21 ST I-II, Q51, A1: ‘One thing can be natural to another in two ways. First in respect of the specific nature, as the faculty of laughing is natural to man, and it is natural to fire to have an upward tendency. Secondly, in respect of the individual nature, as it is natural to Socrates or Plato to be prone to sickness or inclined to health, in accordance with their respective temperaments.’ Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid potest esse naturale alicui dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum naturam speciei, sicut natural est homini esse risibile, et igni ferri sursum. Alio modo, secundum naturam individui, sicut naturale est Socrati vel Platoni esse aegrotativum vel sanativum, secundum propriam complexiionem. Latin is from the Pauline edition. 22 In fact, Sullivan himself quotes from such a text, namely ST I-II, Q31, A7. 23 ST II-II, Q154, A11; ST I-II, Q94, A3, ad 2. 24 This sense of ‘nature’ differs from the previous sense in that what you are born with cannot be a habit that you developed over time. The previous sense of nature, however, encompasses habits that one has developed over time. 25 ST III, Q2, A1. 26 Unde naturale potest aliquid dici dupliciter. Uno modo, quod est tantum ex principiis essentialibus rei: sicut igni naturale est sursum ferri. Alio modo dicitur esse homini naturale quod ab ipsa nativitate habet. (S. Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, ed. Petrus Caramello (Taurini: Marietti)). 27 Gareth Moore, A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality (London: Continuum, 2003), 185-207. 28 The English translation is my own. Latin is from the Pauline as follows: Quia vero bonum habet rationem finis, malum autem rationem contrarii, inde est quod omnia illa ad quae homo habet naturalem inclinationem, ratio naturaliter apprehendit ut bona, et per consequens ut opere prosequenda, et contraria eorum ut mala et vitanda. Secundum igitur ordinem inclinationum naturalium, est ordo praeceptorum legis naturae. 29 ST I-II, Q94, A2. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 ST II-II, Q64, A5. 33 Et secundum hoc, dicuntur ea esse de lege naturali quae natura omnia animalia docuit, ut est coniunctio maris et feminae, et educatio liberorum, et similia. Latin is from the Pauline. 34 Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999). Bagemihl's book has references to a host of articles on the fact of same-sex sexual behavior in animals. Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk, ‘Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Evolution,’ Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30, no. 10 (2009). Bailey & Zuk alone reference 76 different articles. Volker Sommer and Paul L. Vasey, Homosexual Behaviour in Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Aldo Poiani, Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 35 ‘AGAINST NATURE?,’ Naturhistorisk Museum, accessed October 16, 2013, http://www.nhm.uio.no/besok-oss/utstillinger/skiftende/againstnature/index-eng.html. 36 Ibid. 37 Emphasis added. 38 Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk, ‘Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Evolution,’ Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30, no. 10 (2009): 5. These authors and others specify that this behavior does not just occur in captivity, but also out in the wild. 39 Bailey and Zuk, 4. 40 Bailey and Zuk, 5. 41 The English translation of this by the English Fathers is ‘unisexual lust,’ but this is a bit misleading and so I have taken the liberty to give a more literal translation of concubitus masculorum. 42 Ad secundum dicendum quod natura hominis potest dici vel illa quae est propria homini: et secundum hoc, omnia peccata, inquantum sunt contra rationem, sunt etiam contra naturam, ut patet per Damascenum in II Libro. Vel illa quae est communis homini et aliis animalibus: et secundum hoc, quaedam specialia peccata dicuntur esse contra naturam; sicut contra commixtionem maris et feminae, quae est naturalis omnibus animalibus, est concubitus masculorum, quod specialiter dicitur vitium contra naturam. Latin is from the Pauline Edition. Translation is adapted from the English Fathers. 43 ST II-II, Q154, A11: Alio modo, quia etiam, super hoc, repugnat ipsi ordini naturali venerei actus qui convenit humanae specie: quod dicitur vitium contra naturam. Latin is from the Pauline. See also Aquinas' commentary on Romans 1:26-27: Dicit ergo primo. Ideo illos dico in passiones ignominiae traditos, nam feminae eorum mutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam - I cor. c. xi, 14: Nec ipsa natura docet vos. Is. xxiv, v. 5: Mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum, id est ius naturale. Est autem considerandum quod dupliciter est aliquid contra naturam hominis. Uno modo contra naturam differentiae constitutivae hominis, quae est rationale; et sic omne peccatum dicitur esse contra naturam hominis, inquantum est contra rationem rectam. Unde et Damascenus dicit in II lib. quod angelus peccans versus est ex eo quod est secundum naturam in id quod est praeter naturam. Alio modo dicitur esse aliquid contra naturam hominis ratione generis, quod est animal. Manifestum est autem quod, secundum naturae intentionem, commixtio sexuum in animalibus ordinatur ad actum generationis, unde omnis commixtionis modus, ex quo generatio sequi non potest, est contra naturam hominis inquantum est animal. Et secundum hoc dicitur in Glossa ‘naturalis usus est ut vir et mulier in uno concubitu coeant, contra naturam vero ut masculus masculum polluat et mulier mulierem.’ Et eadem ratio est de omni actu coitus ex quo generatio sequi non potest. (S. Thomae Aquinatis, Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, Super Rom. Cap. 1, Lectio 8, n.149, ed. P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P., VIII Revisa ed., vol. I (Taurini, Romae: Marietti, 1953), p. 28). 44 Est autem considerandum quod dupliciter est aliquid contra naturam hominis. Uno modo contra naturam differentiae constitutivae hominis, quae est rationale; et sic omne peccatum dicitur esse contra naturam hominis, inquantum est contra rationem rectam…Alio modo dicitur esse aliquid contra naturam hominis ratione generis, quod est animal. Manifestum est autem quod, secundum naturae intentionem, commixtio sexuum in animalibus ordinatur ad actum generationis, unde omnis commixtionis modus, ex quo generatio sequi non potest, est contra naturam hominis inquantum est animal. Latin is from the Marietti. Translation is my own. 45 Cf. Editorial, A Vermont Court Speaks, Boston Globe, Dec. 22, 1999, page A22 (‘[Gay marriage] no more undermine[s] traditional marriage than sailing undermines swimming.’), quoted in Girgis, George, Anderson. ‘What is Marriage,’ in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 32, 260. 46 Sicut contingit in omni usu genitalium membrorum preter matrimonialem actum. Et quod omnis talis actus sit inordinatus secundum se ipsum apparet ex hoc quod omnis actus humanus dicitur esse inordinatus qui non est proportionatus debito fini: sicut comestio est inordinata si non proportionetur corporis salubritati ad quam ordinatur sicut ad finem. Finis autem usus genitalium membrorum est generatio et educatio prolis, et ideo omnis usus predictorum membroum qui non est proportionatus generationi prolis et debite eius educationi est secundum se inordinatus. Quicumque autem actus predictorum membroum est preter commixtionem maris et femine manifestum est quod non est accomodus generationi prolis. Latin is from the Leonine for the De Malo: Sancti Thomae de Aquino, Opera Omnia Iussu Leonis XIII P.M. Edita, Tomus XXIII, Quaestiones Disputatae de Malo, (Romae, Paris: Commissio Leonina, 1982). The translation is my own. 47 J. Budziszewski, “The Illusion of Gay Marriage,” Philosophia Christi 7, no. 1 (2005): 47. He also has an additional arguments that it aggravates sexual imbalance (49-50) and that it is unhealthy (50). His reliance upon the teleology of bodily organs becomes even more explicit in his follow-up reply to Ellison: J. Budziszewski, “What the Point Isn't, A Response to Marvin M. Ellison,” Philosophia Christi 7, no. 1 (2005). Timothy Hsiao, “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex,” The Heythrop Journal, 2014. Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press, 2008), 147-149. 48 Burton Leiser, “Homosexuality and the ‘Unnaturalness Argument’” Leiser, section 4, accessed October 17, 2013, http://faculty.cbu.ca/sstewart/sexlove/leiser.htm: “If a man ‘perverts’ himself by wiggling his ears for the entertainment of his neighbours instead of using them exclusively for their ‘natural’ function of hearing, no one thinks of consigning him to prison. If he abuses his teeth by using them to pull staples from memos--a function for which teeth were clearly not designed--he is not accused of being immoral, degraded, and degenerate… any attempt to call one use or another the only natural one seems to be arbitrary, if not question-begging.” Andrew Sullivan, ‘Unnatural Law,’ The New Republic, March 24, 2003, 21: ‘Is an eye being used immorally if you use it not to see but to wink? Or a mouth somehow deployed immorally if we use it not to eat or drink or breathe but to smile?’ John J. McNeill, S.J., The Church and the Homosexual (New York: Pocket Books, 1976), 114: “We do not find it ‘contrary to nature’ that man has taken the hands which biological evolution provided him as grasping instruments and employed them in the ideal creative pursuits of wielding a brush or a pen. Nor do we find it contrary to nature that man has used his mouth with its teeth, tongue and lips, obviously intended by nature for eating, in order to communicate through speech and song his most intimate aspirations.” John Corvino, What's Wrong with Homosexuality? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 83-87. 49 Contra Hsiao: The teeth are for chewing; they are not for holding flashlights. This use of the teeth in holding flashlights is not merely a case of ‘preventing a natural function from being engaged,’ nor a case of ‘imposing another purpose’ upon the teeth consistent with their original purpose. Yes, in using one's eyes to flirt one is still seeing and in using one's tongue to lick stamps one is still tasting, but in holding the flashlight with one's teeth in no sense is one eating or chewing. There is nothing immoral about not eating at the same time as holding a flashlight. Likewise, in playing the guitar with your feet one is not preventing a natural function from being engaged, nor is one imposing another purpose consistent with the original purpose of the feet. While licking stamps, one is indeed still tasting, but while playing the guitar with the feet one is in no sense still walking. Hsiao's distinctions seem a bit ad hoc. Nevertheless, I admire his effort. He seems to have thought more about this type of argument than anyone else. But it just does not work. 50 If it is said that the purpose of all organs is for the good of the whole, so that one may violate the teleology of them for the physical health of the whole, then it follows that on such grounds one may commit sodomy in order to avoid death. 51 Romans 1:26-27. 52 Aquinas bases his entire virtue ethics upon the powers of the soul and their teleology. So it would be rather odd if when it came to sexual ethics he based it solely upon the teleology of bodily organs. Perhaps, what is going on in these texts of Aquinas is that he is using the sexual organs as material aspects of the generative power. 53 Marital intercourse during infertile times is only accidentally and not essentially infertile. It is still by its nature sex and so is still by its nature in its natural species ordered towards the end of procreation. It is merely a circumstance of the act that the woman is infertile. Bestiality and sodomy however are essentially infertile. 54 Many thanks to those in attendance at the First U.S. Conference of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, and most especially to John Boyer, for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Volume56, Issue5September 2015Pages 759-768 ReferencesRelatedInformation