Magisterium's Argument Essay

As an old century came and went, a new one- the twenty-first century- took root, and the landscape of sexuality began to change across the world. No longer was a heteronormative approach seen as the accepted norm, but questions were being asked regarding the fluidity of these concepts. Homosexual acts and questions about whether or not they were morally correct ways to behave were at the forefront of public life. The Catholic Church was called to answer these questions, and did so in 2003 when the magisterium released “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons.” In their message to the world, the church proposed that homosexuality was a morally wrong way to act. This stance caused uproar among several feminist authors. Specifically, Margret Farley and Christine Gudorf. These authors argue against the magisterium’s approach, and believe that viewing sex and gender from
The natural law is said to be the law that is ordered to us by God. When actions go towards the natural law they are considered to be the morally correct action, but when actions go against the law they are deemed immoral. The magisterium views homosexual acts to be against the natural law, because they are not considered to be complementary. This argument requires an acceptance that male-female sex is considered correct because anatomically male and female parts fit together, and have the capacity to create new life. This approach holds validity in that it accepts the biological necessity that life is created only with the union of the male sperm and female egg, and will only be continued in such a way. However, this belief loses its value in that it makes the worth of sex solely dependent on the drive to bear children. This causes a devaluation of relationships in that all other worthwhile components provided by them are seen as lacking