The United States Senate and the National Defense Authorization Act: Repealing bans on the most grievous sins

In my last post, I noted how the U.S. Senate has repealed the bans on sodomy and bestiality in the military.  Article 125 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice was repealed by S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. See here.  Go to page 147.

Article 125 of the UCMJ read:

a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


The UCMJ has always viewed same-sex intercourse and bestiality as unnatural.  What has changed?  Other than the fact that certain U.S. Senators, due to moral cowardice, have decided to cater to radical homosexual activists who demand that their unnatural vice be granted societal approval?


Aquinas on Unnatural Sex





Thomas Aquinas (1224/25-75) is commonly regarded as the greatest Western philosopher of the thirteenth century. In a series of works he addressed all the current issues of theology and philosophy, and in particular the problem Christian thinkers had in dealing with the arrival of good editions of the works of Aristotle in the West.

Aquinas was both intensely productive and quite flexible in his approaches. [On occasion he reportedly was able to write, via dictation, two or more works at a time]. Because of the formidable extent of his works, it is often his two great summas to which we turn to find out what he thought. This is not always wise. The summas were consciously written as compendia, and Aquinas addressed a number of theoretical issues in smaller subject specific treatises. Moreover, many of the common questions in thirteenth centuiy academic discussion were based on questions from the basic Theologiael textbook, Peter Lombard's Four Books of Sentences, and it is to Aquinas' commentaries on these that one should turn for his discussion of issues such as women clergy, or the moment of consecration.

The summas [the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles] are, however, useful. Echoing the disputation methods of university teaching, the Summa Theologiae presents a summation of Aquinas' opinions on issues from the existence of God, to the sacremental system, to basic moral rules.

The selection here addresses Aquinas discussion of sex and sexuality. It shows both his typical methods - his willingness to face objections openly, his use of authorities, and his use of logic - as well as the effort to construct the intractable realities of human experience into a structured and analyzable form.


Extracts from Summa Theologiae II-II, question 154

The following issues are addressed by Aquinas in these selections:-

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11: Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 12: Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust? Aquinas' discussion of sexual morality in general [which includes fornication, incest, and rape], is available in a separate document, Aquinas on Sex

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11

Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not a species of lust. For no mention of the vice against nature is made in the enumeration given above (1, Objection 1). Therefore it is not a species of lust.

Objection 2. Further, lust is contrary to virtue; and so it is comprised under vice. But the unnatural vice is comprised not under vice, but under bestiality, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 5). Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

Objection 3. Further, lust regards acts directed to human generation, as stated above (153, 2): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

On the contrary, It is reckoned together with the other species of lust (2 Cor. 12:21) where we read: "And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss says: "Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust."

I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

Reply to Objection 1. There we enumerated the species of lust that are not contrary to human nature: wherefore the unnatural vice was omitted.

Reply to Objection 2. Bestiality differs from vice, for the latter is opposed to human virtue by a certain excess in the same matter as the virtue, and therefore is reducible to the same genus.

Reply to Objection 3. The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 12

Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin among the species of lust. For the more a sin is contrary to charity the graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which are injurious to our neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore the unnatural sin is not the greatest among the species of lust.

Objection 2. Further, sins committed against God would seem to be the most grievous. Now sacrilege is committed directly against God, since it is injurious to the Divine worship. Therefore sacrilege is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Objection 3. Further, seemingly, a sin is all the more grievous according as we owe a greater love to the person against whom that sin is committed. Now the order of charity requires that a man love more those persons who are united to him---and such are those whom he defiles by incest---than persons who are not connected with him, and whom in certain cases he defiles by the unnatural vice. Therefore incest is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Objection 4. Further, if the unnatural vice is most grievous, the more it is against nature the graver it would seem to be. Now the sin of uncleanness or effeminacy would seem to be most contrary to nature, since it would seem especially in accord with nature that agent and patient should be distinct from one another. Hence it would follow that uncleanness is the gravest of unnatural vices. But this is not true. Therefore unnatural vices are not the most grievous among sins of lust.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that "of all these," namely the sins belonging to lust, "that which is against nature is the worst."

I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (09), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another's authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above (10, ad 2).

Reply to Objection 1. Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust."

Reply to Objection 2. Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

Reply to Objection 3. The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

Reply to Objection 4. Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Gn. 37:2, "He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime," says that "they copulated with cattle." After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the "vas" than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.


Paul Halsall
March 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu


Our Senators have voted to repeal bans on the most grievous sins.  They have opted to condone such evils.

U.S. Senate repeals bans on sodomy and bestiality in the military

I've been warning for years that the acceptance of sodomy would lead inevitably to the acceptance of bestiality as well.  For example, back in December of 2010, I noted that according to Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, just prior to the Reign of Antichrist, "...there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the law of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. They will ridicule Christian simplicity ; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge...As a result no principle at all- however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications, and delimitation by man.


These are evil times a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power, almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant and that they live as befits their state of life. In like manner therefore they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church; Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while Bishops prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."

And I asserted that:

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality."

Was I wrong?  No. 

 
 
The Hour of Darkness has arrived for America and the rest of the world.  People are becoming increasingly desensitized to sin and hard of heart.  And they are turning to doctrines of demons.

1993 U.S. Senate Debate on Homosexuality in the Military: "..in the development of cohesion, the needs of the group must be placed ahead of the rights of the individual."

"Military personnel policies on homosexuality have developed in a long history, history that has taught the lessons of war and peace, readiness and failure. The ban did not begin in the 1980's. It was codified after decades of experience. That experience led to a conclusion: Homosexuality is incompatible with military life, for practical reasons and for experiential reasons. Our Armed Forces have concluded that the presence of homosexuals undermines their ability to: First, maintain discipline, good order, and morale; second, our Armed Forces have concluded that the presence of homosexuals undermines their ability to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members.

They have concluded that this policy is necessary to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; that it is necessary to facilitate assignments and worldwide deployment of service members, who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; it is necessary for recruitment and retention of members of the military services; and finally, it is necessary to maintain public acceptability of military service.

That is a direct statement from current military policy, at least the policy as it was before the interim policy was directed in response to the President's initiative to change that.

The courts, in turn, have consistently upheld this policy because they judged that its basis was rational, that the military had a rational basis with which to make these conclusions and, therefore, draw the policy as exclusion of homosexuals from the military.

So when the President proposed to overturn the standard, I came to the floor and made a statement and also issued a challenge. I said that the burden of proof in this matter was squarely on the President's shoulders. It ought to be the advocates of change of a system that is deemed not only effective but the most effective the world has ever seen who must overcome the lessons of history. It is those advocates of change who must positively discredit an experience that is far different and far wider than their own.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted an extensive process to examine the roots of this policy. Senator Nunn designed a process that was fair and balanced. Staff interviewed thousands of military personnel on 21 bases. In six hearings, including field hearings, talking with soldiers, sailors, airmen where they live and work, thousands of pages of testimony were collected. Many Members of the Senate have not followed these matters as closely as those of the committee and, as I said, I would like to provide a summary of what we found so it can be a basis for evaluation by Members of the Senate as they look at these proposed policies.

Let me address this in a topical way. The most important criteria was this whole question of cohesion and morale. In the Armed Services Committee, we devoted a great deal of attention to the importance of cohesion in the military. It is something that those who have not served need to understand before they can render judgment.

Dr. David Marlowe, a military psychiatric expert, gave cohesion a very clear definition. He said:

[Page: S7604]

In its simplest form, cohesion could be viewed as that set of factors and processes that bonded soldiers together and bonded them to their leaders so that they would stand in the line of battle, mutually support each other, withstand the shock, terror, and trauma of combat, sustain each other in the completion of their mission and neither break nor run.

Dr. Marlowe concluded:

I think it was best put by a soldier I knew once who said the flag, patriotism, mom and apple pie are what bring you into the army. When the first bullet comes down the range, the only thing you are concerned with are your buddies.

Experts then told us that cohesion between those buddies is based on trust and shared values. They stressed over and over the importance of the shared-value system that is necessary to form the unit, the cohesion, the team that can effectively do what Dr. Marlowe has said, and that is withstand the shock, terror, and trauma of combat.

Dr. William Henderson testified before the committee:

A significant characteristic about a cohesive unit is the constant observation and evaluation of the behavior of unit members. Any deviation from unit norms, values, or expected behavior brings immediate and intense group pressures to conform to group norms. If the behavior is not corrected, then cleavage results in the group and cohesion is weakened.

One submariner with 12 years in the Navy commented: `Every sub I've ever been on has been like a close-knit family. If you feel uneasy about somebody within the family, you separate the family.'

As I said, this is not something that we normally relate to in our everyday lives because we live and work in an entirely different atmosphere, an entirely different way than those in the military. Those on deployment, those living in close quarters on submarines and ships, those living in tents overseas, those in training experience a far different living relationship, working relationship than those of us in civilian life. It is important to understand the distinction, and it is important to understand the difference, and it is also important to understand the concept of unit cohesion which can only be formed through, as these experts have testified, shared values and a unique type of bonding.

We heard that in the development of cohesion, the needs of the group must be placed ahead of the rights of the individual. Most of our work on the Senate floor and most of the legislation that we evaluate have to do with individual rights, and when we talk about military units, we subrogate individual rights in favor of group rights. It is something that is foreign to a lot of our thinking and a lot of our evaluation."

Reflect very carefully on this coherent and irrefutable argument: "It ought to be the advocates of change of a system that is deemed not only effective but the most effective the world has ever seen who must overcome the lessons of history."  The Obama White House and those who wish to cater to the radical homosexual lobby, have not made their case.  In fact, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) is beginning to bear fruit already.  They have not "overcome the lessons of history."  The old axiom applies here with emphatic force: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Related reading: Pederasty is the dominant form of homosexuality.