By Januarius Asongu, PhD

Abstract

The concept contra naturam (“contrary to nature”) has historically played a decisive role in Catholic moral theology, particularly in the evaluation of sexual ethics. Within the classical natural law tradition, certain sexual acts—especially same-sex acts—have been described as peccata contra naturam because they appear to contradict the teleological structure of human sexuality. Yet Catholic theology simultaneously employs a related concept within miracle theology, where events described as occurring praeter naturam or beyond the order of nature are celebrated as manifestations of divine agency. This dual usage reveals a conceptual tension in the theological interpretation of nature. If deviation from ordinary natural processes can signify divine transcendence in miracle theology, the moral application of contra naturam in sexual ethics requires careful reconsideration. This article examines the Thomistic foundations of the concept, reviews contemporary debates in Catholic sexual ethics, and proposes a constructive reinterpretation of the category contra naturam. It argues that the concept functions inconsistently within Catholic theology and therefore cannot serve as a stable foundation for the moral condemnation of LGBTQ relationships. Instead, the relational goods present in faithful same-sex relationships invite renewed reflection on the meaning of nature, divine creativity, and human flourishing within Catholic moral theology.

Keywords: natural law, Catholic sexual ethics, Thomas Aquinas, homosexuality, miracles, moral theology

A)   Introduction

The concept of contra naturam—“contrary to nature”—has long occupied a central place in Catholic moral theology. Within the classical natural law tradition, acts classified as contra naturam are considered morally disordered because they are believed to contradict the intrinsic purposes embedded within human nature. For centuries this concept has shaped theological discussions of sexuality, particularly in relation to same-sex relationships, which have frequently been described as contrary to natural law (Finnis, 1994; Grisez, 1993).

Yet Catholic theology employs a closely related concept in another domain where deviation from the ordinary patterns of nature carries a radically different meaning. In scholastic miracle theology, events that exceed the causal capacities of nature are described as occurring praeter naturam or beyond the order of nature. Rather than representing disorder, such events are interpreted as signs of divine transcendence and grace. According to Thomas Aquinas, miracles occur when God produces effects that surpass the capacities of created nature (Aquinas, 1955).

This dual usage reveals a conceptual tension within the theological interpretation of nature. In one context, deviation from natural processes is interpreted as evidence of divine freedom; in another, deviation from natural processes is interpreted as moral disorder. The same conceptual language thus generates sharply different moral evaluations depending on the theological domain in which it is applied.

The tension becomes particularly significant in contemporary debates about sexuality within Catholic theology. Traditional natural law arguments have frequently relied on the category contra naturam to condemn same-sex sexual relationships. Such arguments typically appeal to the procreative orientation of sexuality and the biological complementarity of male and female bodies (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986). Yet modern developments in philosophical anthropology, empirical research on human sexuality, and theological reflection on human dignity have increasingly challenged these interpretations.

The contemporary Catholic debate on LGBTQ relationships is therefore not simply a conflict between tradition and modernity. Rather, it reflects deeper disagreements about the meaning of nature itself and about the interpretive frameworks through which Catholic theology understands human sexuality.

Recent scholarship has emphasized that natural law reasoning must engage empirical knowledge about human sexuality and the relational dimensions of human flourishing (Cahill, 2006; Farley, 2006; Salzman & Lawler, 2019). At the same time, other scholars continue to defend traditional interpretations grounded in the teleological structure of the sexual faculty (Finnis, 1994).

This article intervenes in these debates by focusing on a conceptual issue that has received relatively limited attention: the theological meaning of the category contra naturam across different domains of Catholic thought.

Refined Thesis

The central thesis of this article is that the category contra naturam functions inconsistently within Catholic theology and therefore cannot serve as a stable moral foundation for condemning LGBTQ relationships. When interpreted within the broader Thomistic framework of divine freedom, the dynamism of creation, and contemporary understandings of human sexuality, the concept of nature proves more flexible than traditional sexual ethics often assumes. Consequently, the presence of faithful, loving same-sex relationships challenges the adequacy of moral arguments that rely solely on appeals to natural teleology.

The article proceeds in three stages. First, it examines the Thomistic metaphysical foundations of the concept contra naturam, particularly in relation to miracle theology. Second, it surveys contemporary debates within Catholic sexual ethics in order to situate the discussion within current scholarly discourse. Third, it proposes a constructive reinterpretation of the concept that acknowledges the relational goods present in LGBTQ relationships while remaining attentive to the broader theological commitments of the Catholic tradition.

By reexamining the theological meaning of nature, the article seeks to contribute to ongoing conversations about sexuality, doctrine, and the development of Catholic moral theology.

Literature Review

Contemporary Debates in Catholic Sexual Ethics

Debates concerning homosexuality within Catholic theology have intensified significantly in recent decades. These debates encompass questions of natural law theory, theological anthropology, ecclesial authority, and the development of doctrine. Contemporary scholarship broadly falls into three interpretive frameworks: traditional natural law defense, revisionist natural law reinterpretation, and relational or personalist sexual ethics.

Traditional Natural Law Defenses

The most influential contemporary defense of traditional Catholic teaching on homosexuality has been articulated by proponents of New Natural Law theory, particularly John Finnis and Germain Grisez. Their work seeks to defend the Church’s moral teaching while reformulating natural law arguments in terms compatible with modern analytic philosophy (Finnis, 1994; Grisez, 1993).

Within this framework, moral reasoning begins with a set of fundamental human goods such as life, knowledge, friendship, and marriage. Marriage is interpreted as a comprehensive union oriented toward procreation and family life. Because same-sex relationships cannot participate in this procreative structure, they are considered incompatible with the marital good and therefore morally disordered (Finnis, 1994).

Magisterial teaching frequently reflects similar reasoning. Official Catholic teaching holds that homosexual acts are “contrary to natural law” because they are not open to procreation and do not reflect the complementarity of the sexes. 

Nevertheless, critics have argued that these approaches often rely on philosophical assumptions that insufficiently engage the complexities of human sexuality and relational experience.

Revisionist Natural Law Approaches

A second stream of scholarship seeks to reinterpret natural law within a broader framework of human flourishing. Scholars such as Jean Porter argue that classical Thomistic natural law was historically more flexible than some contemporary interpretations suggest (Porter, 2005).

Revisionist approaches emphasize that natural law involves practical reasoning about human goods rather than mechanical application of biological functions. Some scholars have proposed reinterpreting sexual complementarity in relational or personal terms rather than exclusively biological ones (Salzman & Lawler, 2019). Contemporary discussions of human dignity within Catholic ethics likewise highlight tensions between official doctrine and broader theological commitments to universal human dignity. 

Other philosophers have explored whether natural law reasoning itself could be reformulated to accommodate same-sex relationships without abandoning its core principles (Blankschaen, 2019). 

Relational and Personalist Approaches

A third stream of scholarship emphasizes relational ethics rooted in Catholic personalism. Drawing on twentieth-century developments in Catholic theology, scholars such as Margaret Farley and Lisa Sowle Cahill argue that sexual relationships should be evaluated according to relational criteria such as justice, fidelity, and mutuality (Cahill, 2006; Farley, 2006).

These approaches reflect broader developments within Catholic moral theology that emphasize the dignity of the human person and the relational nature of human flourishing. Contemporary debates have also been shaped by pastoral developments within the Church, including discussions surrounding the 2023 Vatican declaration Fiducia supplicans, which addressed pastoral blessings for same-sex couples and generated significant theological discussion worldwide. 

Despite these developments, the conceptual foundations of the category contra naturam remain relatively underexplored within the literature. While scholars have debated the application of natural law to homosexuality, fewer studies have examined how the concept of “nature” functions across different theological domains.

The present article seeks to fill this gap by placing miracle theology and sexual ethics into dialogue. Such comparison reveals that the category contra naturam operates within Catholic theology in ways that are conceptually more flexible than traditional sexual ethics often assumes.

B)   The Thomistic Foundations of Contra Naturam

Nature and Teleology in Classical Natural Law

The concept of contra naturam within Catholic moral theology emerges from the broader metaphysical framework of classical natural law theory. In the thought of Thomas Aquinas, nature is not merely a descriptive category referring to biological processes but a normative concept rooted in teleology. Every created being possesses an intrinsic orientation toward fulfillment, and moral reasoning involves aligning human action with these natural ends (Aquinas, 1947).

For Aquinas, natural law represents the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law of God. Because human beings possess reason, they can recognize the goods that correspond to their nature and orient their actions toward those goods. Natural law therefore functions as a bridge between divine wisdom and human moral reasoning.

Within this teleological framework, the moral evaluation of sexual behavior follows from the perceived purposes of human sexuality. Aquinas understood sexual activity primarily in relation to procreation and the continuation of the species. Sexual acts that deliberately frustrate this procreative orientation were therefore categorized as peccata contra naturam, or sins against nature (Aquinas, 1947).

However, contemporary interpreters of Aquinas have emphasized that Thomistic natural law cannot be reduced to a purely biological account of human action. Jean Porter (2005) argues that Aquinas’s understanding of natural law involved practical reasoning about human flourishing rather than rigid biological determinism. According to Porter, the Thomistic concept of nature includes social, relational, and rational dimensions that extend beyond biological functions.

Similarly, moral theologian James Keenan (2010) notes that the Catholic moral tradition has historically evolved through dialogue between philosophical principles and changing understandings of human experience. This dynamic character of moral theology suggests that the interpretation of natural law has always involved an element of historical development.

These insights complicate the assumption that the Thomistic framework provides a fixed and unchanging account of human sexuality. If natural law involves rational reflection on human flourishing rather than mechanical application of biological purposes, then the moral interpretation of sexuality may be more flexible than traditionally assumed.

Miracle Theology and the Transcendence of Nature

While natural law theory interprets nature as the normative structure guiding moral action, miracle theology presents a different dimension of the relationship between nature and divine agency. In scholastic theology, miracles are frequently described as events that occur beyond the ordinary order of nature.

Aquinas distinguishes three types of miracles in De potentia Dei. First, there are events that nature cannot produce at all, such as the resurrection of the dead. Second, there are events that nature could produce but not in that particular manner, such as instantaneous healing. Third, there are events that nature could produce through natural intermediaries but which God accomplishes directly (Aquinas, 1955).

In each case, the miracle reveals that the natural order remains contingent upon divine agency. God, as the creator of nature, is not confined by the causal patterns embedded within creation. Rather, the natural order expresses God’s ordinary mode of governance while remaining open to extraordinary intervention.

This understanding of miracles carries important implications for the theological meaning of nature. If nature is the product of divine creativity, it cannot function as an absolute constraint on divine action. Instead, nature represents a contingent order sustained by God’s ongoing creative activity.

The scholastic tradition therefore distinguished between events that are contrary to nature (contra naturam) and those that occur beyond nature (praeter naturam). Miracles fall into the latter category. They do not destroy nature but reveal the deeper freedom of divine action.

The theological significance of this distinction is profound. It suggests that the natural order is not a closed system but a dynamic reality oriented toward its fulfillment in God.

Divine Freedom and the Limits of Natural Categories

The recognition that God can act beyond the ordinary processes of nature raises important questions about the interpretation of natural law. If divine freedom transcends natural causality, then appeals to nature cannot function as rigid moral boundaries independent of theological reflection.

The Christian doctrine of creation affirms that the natural order is both real and contingent. Nature possesses genuine structure and intelligibility, yet it remains dependent upon God as its ultimate source. This theological perspective prevents nature from being interpreted as a self-contained system with absolute moral authority.

Philosophically, this insight aligns with broader developments in modern philosophy of science. Contemporary scientific understanding emphasizes the complexity and openness of natural systems rather than rigid deterministic structures. Biological diversity and evolutionary processes reveal that nature itself is characterized by variation and adaptation.

These insights have implications for theological interpretations of human sexuality. If the natural world exhibits substantial diversity, then appeals to nature as a singular normative standard may require reconsideration.

Theologian Sarah Coakley (2015) has argued that Christian theology must resist overly static interpretations of nature that fail to account for the dynamic character of creation. According to Coakley, theological reflection must engage both the empirical realities of the natural world and the metaphysical insights of the Christian tradition.

Similarly, contemporary Catholic ethicists have emphasized that natural law reasoning must remain attentive to the empirical realities of human life. The interpretation of human nature cannot be separated from the lived experiences of human persons (Kalbian, 2014).

The Conceptual Tension in Sexual Ethics

The comparison between miracle theology and sexual ethics reveals an important conceptual tension within Catholic thought. In miracle theology, deviation from ordinary natural patterns can signify divine transcendence. In sexual ethics, similar deviation has often been interpreted as moral disorder.

This divergence suggests that the concept of nature may function differently across theological contexts. While miracle theology emphasizes divine freedom and transcendence, sexual ethics has historically emphasized teleological order and moral constraint.

The coexistence of these two perspectives raises a critical question: how should Catholic theology interpret phenomena that appear to challenge traditional understandings of nature?

The contemporary discussion of LGBTQ relationships illustrates the significance of this question. Traditional moral teaching has classified same-sex relationships as contra naturam because they do not fulfill the procreative structure associated with heterosexual intercourse.

Yet empirical research suggests that sexual orientation represents a stable dimension of human identity rather than a voluntary deviation from natural norms (Mustanski et al., 2014). This raises the possibility that traditional interpretations of nature may have been shaped by incomplete understandings of human sexuality.

If the natural law tradition seeks to guide human flourishing within the order of creation, then moral reasoning must account for the full complexity of human experience. The existence of enduring, loving same-sex relationships therefore invites renewed theological reflection on the meaning of nature and the scope of natural law.

Toward a Reconsideration of Contra Naturam

The analysis developed in this section suggests that the category contra naturam cannot be understood independently of broader theological assumptions about nature and divine agency. Within the Thomistic framework, nature is not a closed mechanical system but a dynamic order sustained by divine creativity.

The recognition that miracles occur beyond the ordinary processes of nature illustrates the flexibility of this framework. If divine action can transcend natural causality, then the interpretation of nature within moral theology must remain open to reconsideration.

This does not imply that natural law loses its normative significance. Rather, it suggests that natural law reasoning must remain attentive to the evolving understanding of human nature that emerges from scientific knowledge, philosophical reflection, and theological insight.

Such reconsideration is particularly relevant in contemporary debates about sexuality. The presence of faithful, committed LGBTQ relationships challenges the assumption that such relationships necessarily contradict the goods associated with human flourishing.

If the natural law tradition seeks to guide human beings toward the fulfillment of their nature in communion with God, then the relational goods present in such relationships deserve serious theological consideration.

C)   Natural Law, Moral Development, and the Diversity of Human Love

The New Natural Law Defense of Traditional Sexual Ethics

Any contemporary discussion of Catholic sexual ethics must engage the influential philosophical framework known as New Natural Law theory, developed most prominently by John Finnis and Germain Grisez. This school of thought seeks to defend Catholic moral teaching while presenting natural law arguments in a form compatible with modern analytic philosophy (Finnis, 1994; Grisez, 1993).

New Natural Law theorists argue that moral reasoning should focus on a set of fundamental human goods—such as life, knowledge, friendship, and marriage—that are intrinsically valuable and not reducible to instrumental purposes. Within this framework, marriage is understood as a comprehensive union that integrates bodily, emotional, and procreative dimensions of human life.

Because same-sex relationships cannot fulfill the procreative dimension of this union, proponents of New Natural Law conclude that same-sex sexual acts are incompatible with the marital good and therefore morally impermissible (Finnis, 1994).

This philosophical framework has strongly influenced contemporary magisterial teaching on homosexuality. Official Church documents frequently appeal to natural law arguments grounded in the complementarity of male and female bodies and the procreative orientation of sexuality (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986).

Yet New Natural Law theory has also faced sustained criticism within Catholic moral theology. Critics argue that its account of marriage and sexuality sometimes relies on abstract conceptual definitions that insufficiently engage the lived realities of human relationships (Porter, 2005).

Margaret Farley (2006) and Lisa Sowle Cahill (2006) have argued that Christian sexual ethics must evaluate relationships according to relational goods such as fidelity, mutual care, and justice rather than relying exclusively on biological complementarity.

These critiques suggest that the moral significance of sexuality cannot be adequately captured by a purely procreative understanding of the sexual faculty.

Development of Doctrine and the Evolution of Moral Theology

The Catholic intellectual tradition has long recognized that theological understanding develops over time. While the core truths of faith remain constant, the Church’s interpretation of moral questions has historically evolved through deeper reflection on Scripture, human experience, and philosophical insight.

John Henry Newman’s theory of doctrinal development remains one of the most influential accounts of this process. Newman argued that authentic development does not abandon earlier teachings but deepens their meaning in light of new insights.

Historical examples illustrate this dynamic. Catholic teaching on slavery, religious freedom, and economic justice has evolved significantly over centuries as theological reflection engaged new moral insights and social realities.

Contemporary Catholic theologians increasingly suggest that debates about sexuality may represent a similar moment of doctrinal development. James Keenan (2010) argues that Catholic moral theology has repeatedly expanded its understanding of human dignity as historical circumstances have changed.

Recent discussions within Catholic moral theology have also emphasized the need to integrate empirical knowledge about human sexuality into theological reflection. Salzman and Lawler (2019) argue that traditional interpretations of sexual complementarity must be reconsidered in light of contemporary scientific knowledge and evolving understandings of human identity.

These developments do not necessarily imply a rejection of natural law. Rather, they suggest that the interpretation of natural law must remain open to deeper understanding as theological reflection continues.

Mimetic Theory and the Moral Dynamics of Exclusion

Another perspective that illuminates contemporary debates about sexuality comes from René Girard’s theory of mimetic desire and scapegoating. Girard argued that human societies often preserve social cohesion by identifying marginalized groups as sources of disorder and directing communal hostility toward them.

Theologian James Alison has applied Girard’s insights to Christian theology and sexual ethics. Alison (2001) suggests that historical condemnations of homosexuality may reflect patterns of scapegoating rather than coherent theological reasoning.

According to this analysis, societies frequently construct moral categories that define certain groups as embodiments of disorder. Such categories serve to reinforce social boundaries and preserve communal identity.

From this perspective, the classification of same-sex relationships as contra naturam may function partly as a social mechanism for defining moral boundaries rather than purely as a theological judgment about nature.

Girardian analysis also highlights the theological significance of the Gospel narrative. The crucifixion reveals the injustice of scapegoating mechanisms by exposing the innocence of the victim at their center.

If Christian theology exposes the violence inherent in scapegoating, then moral frameworks that marginalize vulnerable communities must be examined critically. The category contra naturam may therefore require reassessment if it functions primarily as a tool of exclusion rather than as a genuine expression of moral truth.

The Relational Goods of LGBTQ Relationships

A constructive Catholic approach to LGBTQ relationships must therefore begin by examining the moral goods present within such relationships rather than assuming their intrinsic disorder.

Contemporary psychological and sociological research indicates that many same-sex relationships exhibit characteristics traditionally valued within Christian moral theology: fidelity, commitment, mutual support, and shared life. These relational goods closely resemble those historically associated with the moral ideal of marriage.

Margaret Farley (2006) proposes several ethical norms for evaluating sexual relationships, including justice, mutuality, free consent, and commitment to the well-being of one’s partner. These norms focus on the relational integrity of relationships rather than exclusively on biological complementarity.

Similarly, Cahill (2006) emphasizes that Christian sexual ethics must consider the broader social and relational contexts in which relationships exist. Relationships that promote human flourishing and mutual care may therefore possess genuine moral significance.

Such perspectives do not dismiss the importance of procreation within Christian theology. Rather, they recognize that sexuality serves multiple dimensions of human flourishing, including companionship, emotional intimacy, and the expression of self-giving love.

If these relational goods are central to Christian moral teaching, then relationships that embody them may warrant theological recognition even if they do not conform to traditional procreative models.

Divine Creativity and the Diversity of Human Nature

The Christian doctrine of creation affirms that the natural world reflects the abundance and diversity of divine creativity. Biological diversity is a fundamental feature of the created order.

Human diversity likewise appears across cultures, histories, and identities. Differences in personality, culture, language, and social structures contribute to the richness of human experience.

If sexual orientation represents a stable dimension of human identity rather than a voluntary deviation from nature, then sexual diversity may represent one aspect of this broader diversity within creation.

This perspective does not require abandoning natural law reasoning. Instead, it invites reconsideration of how natural law interprets the goods associated with human relationships.

Within Christian theology, grace does not destroy nature but perfects it (gratia non tollit naturam sed perficit). If this principle holds true, then the presence of genuine love within LGBTQ relationships may reflect the unfolding of divine grace within human life.

Love characterized by fidelity, commitment, and self-giving embodies values central to Christian moral teaching. Such love therefore challenges simplistic appeals to contra naturam as a moral condemnation.

Conclusion

The category contra naturam has historically functioned as a powerful concept within Catholic moral theology. Traditionally applied to sexual acts considered inconsistent with the teleological structure of human sexuality, the concept has shaped centuries of theological reflection.

Yet Catholic theology simultaneously employs a related concept within miracle theology, where events that transcend ordinary natural processes are celebrated as manifestations of divine power. This dual usage reveals a conceptual tension within the theological interpretation of nature.

Modern developments in philosophical anthropology, empirical research on human sexuality, and contemporary moral theology invite renewed reflection on how the concept of nature functions within Catholic thought.

The analysis presented in this article suggests that the category contra naturam cannot function as a stable moral condemnation of LGBTQ relationships. When interpreted within the broader Thomistic framework of divine freedom and the dynamic character of creation, the concept of nature proves more flexible than traditional sexual ethics often assumes.

The presence of faithful, loving same-sex relationships challenges theological frameworks that rely exclusively on biological teleology. If natural law ultimately concerns the pursuit of human flourishing within the order of creation, then relationships characterized by fidelity, mutual care, and enduring love deserve serious theological consideration.

The deeper question confronting Catholic theology is therefore not simply whether certain forms of love conform to inherited interpretations of nature. Rather, the question concerns whether those interpretations adequately reflect the richness of creation and the breadth of divine creativity.

References 

Alison, J. (2001). Faith beyond resentment. Crossroad.

Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica. Benziger.

Aquinas, T. (1955). De potentia Dei. Westminster.

Blankschaen, C. (2019). Revising sexual ethics within natural law theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs.

Cahill, L. S. (2006). Sex, gender, and Christian ethics. Cambridge University Press.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1986). Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons.

Coakley, S. (2015). God, sexuality, and the self. Cambridge University Press.

Farley, M. (2006). Just love. Continuum.

Finnis, J. (1994). Moral absolutes. Catholic University of America Press.

Grisez, G. (1993). The way of the Lord Jesus. Franciscan Press.

Kalbian, A. (2014). Sex, violence, and justice. Georgetown University Press.

Keenan, J. F. (2010). A history of Catholic moral theology in the twentieth century. Continuum.

Porter, J. (2005). Nature as reason. Eerdmans.

Salzman, T., & Lawler, M. (2019). The sexual person. Georgetown University Press.

Vacek, E. (2020). The ethics of sexuality revisited. Journal of Moral Theology.