|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 5, 2021 23:47:32 GMT
First of all, let me make it clear (a) I am not gay, (b) the last thing I want to do, is to paint a hideous picture of peccatum illud horribile inter christianos non nominandum, and (c.) I surely don't want to appear that I condone any of these acts. Given these caveats, I hope this isn't an inappropriate thread.
Simply put, if homosexuals use condoms to mitigate the danger of their abominable acts, how can this be objected to? Certainly there is no contraceptive intent, because no conception is possible, just to state the obvious.
Does it make the sin worse because it avoids possible temporal punishment for the sin (i.e., it's "safer" in terms of disease, and therefore easier to commit), not quite as bad --- though still a mortal sin and one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance --- because it's not as dangerous, or no effect whatsoever?
And if either of the latter two are true, then can there be any objection, aside from somehow "enabling" these acts?
I have to think, if someone has their cap set on committing this sin, and cannot be persuaded otherwise, it would be better to counsel them "you know you will go to hell for this, but if you've got to do it, at least be safe". If there is an objection to this line of reasoning, I'd be interested to know it.
This is for no one in particular, just general interest and a desire to "think right" about the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 6, 2021 2:50:31 GMT
If the sin is already being committed, I am not certain that it makes it worse.
On the same line of thinking, if someone is having an adulterous relationship and they use a condom is it more sinful, or would it be prudent for them to go ahead and use the condom so they lessen the chance of causing greater problems if the woman gets pregnant as a result of the adulterous relationship and causing a child to grow up as a bastard.
In my line of thinking, if you are going either of these places to begin with, one might as well take the precautions to lessen further damage due to disease, illegitimate children or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 6, 2021 7:17:01 GMT
If the sin is already being committed, I am not certain that it makes it worse. On the same line of thinking, if someone is having an adulterous relationship and they use a condom is it more sinful, or would it be prudent for them to go ahead and use the condom so they lessen the chance of causing greater problems if the woman gets pregnant as a result of the adulterous relationship and causing a child to grow up as a bastard. In my line of thinking, if you are going either of these places to begin with, one might as well take the precautions to lessen further damage due to disease, illegitimate children or whatever. As far as homosexual acts (or even the same unnatural acts being committed by two members of opposite sexes, contraceptive by their very nature because a woman can't conceive "that way"), I don't think it makes the sin any worse either. However, I'm pretty sure Aquinas et al would argue that rendering the natural use contraceptive, on top of its already being adulterous or an act of fornication as the case might be, would be "compounding sin on top of sin" --- true, it is a sin, but it is not disordered by its very nature, just gravely illicit due to the partners not being married to one another (or one or both partners being married to other people), and therefore contraceptive takes away a "good" aspect of the sin, i.e., openness to new life. |
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Feb 7, 2021 2:11:22 GMT
Its a double sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 7, 2021 3:27:04 GMT
Do you mean homosexuals using condoms in the unnatural act? How so? If that is the case, the only reason I can think of, is that it makes the sin easier to commit, because the sinners do not have to fear disease (HIV, syphilis, etc.) nearly as much --- the risk is always "there" (I needn't be more specific than that), but it is way mitigated. And if so, is it then a general principle that "anything that makes a sin easier, becomes sinful itself, and makes the sin worse than it otherwise would be"? |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 7, 2021 3:57:15 GMT
If the sin is already being committed, I am not certain that it makes it worse. On the same line of thinking, if someone is having an adulterous relationship and they use a condom is it more sinful, or would it be prudent for them to go ahead and use the condom so they lessen the chance of causing greater problems if the woman gets pregnant as a result of the adulterous relationship and causing a child to grow up as a bastard. In my line of thinking, if you are going either of these places to begin with, one might as well take the precautions to lessen further damage due to disease, illegitimate children or whatever. As far as homosexual acts (or even the same unnatural acts being committed by two members of opposite sexes, contraceptive by their very nature because a woman can't conceive "that way"), I don't think it makes the sin any worse either. However, I'm pretty sure Aquinas et al would argue that rendering the natural use contraceptive, on top of its already being adulterous or an act of fornication as the case might be, would be "compounding sin on top of sin" --- true, it is a sin, but it is not disordered by its very nature, just gravely illicit due to the partners not being married to one another (or one or both partners being married to other people), and therefore contraceptive takes away a "good" aspect of the sin, i.e., openness to new life. I just did a reread of the CCC. All the references to contraceptives that I came across were in the context of matrimony and between spouses. So, if that is correct then what you laid out in your scenario is sinful enough not to warrant additional degrees of sinfulness. |
|
|
|
Post by Beryllos on Feb 7, 2021 4:57:36 GMT
Prevention of disease is morally good. To expose one's partner to an avoidable health risk would be another sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 7, 2021 10:59:57 GMT
As far as homosexual acts (or even the same unnatural acts being committed by two members of opposite sexes, contraceptive by their very nature because a woman can't conceive "that way"), I don't think it makes the sin any worse either. However, I'm pretty sure Aquinas et al would argue that rendering the natural use contraceptive, on top of its already being adulterous or an act of fornication as the case might be, would be "compounding sin on top of sin" --- true, it is a sin, but it is not disordered by its very nature, just gravely illicit due to the partners not being married to one another (or one or both partners being married to other people), and therefore contraceptive takes away a "good" aspect of the sin, i.e., openness to new life. I just did a reread of the CCC. All the references to contraceptives that I came across were in the context of matrimony and between spouses. So, if that is correct then what you laid out in your scenario is sinful enough not to warrant additional degrees of sinfulness. I realize what you are saying, as well as Humanae vitae specifically saying that "each and every marital act" ( quilibet matrimonii usus) must be open to the transmission of life. I do have to wonder, though, if deliberately contraceptive, but otherwise normal heterosexual intercourse is intrinsically evil --- and my understanding is that it is precisely that --- how it can cease to be evil, in and of itself, if that act is engaged in outside of marriage. Either way, you're frustrating the natural end of the act. My real concern is that, if what you say is true (and, respectfully, I think you've got this wrong, with the best of intentions, but still wrong), whether that then creates a "slippery slope" where, shall we say, innovative moralists --- such as those who have infected the Church the past 50 years --- could say "well, yes, the contraceptive act itself is intrinsically evil, at least as a kind of 'pre-moral evil', but it is also wrong to risk improvidentially bringing children into the world, so if you've 'reached your [perceived] childbearing limit' as a couple, and don't feel like you can have any more, or can't do it just now, then you may reluctantly accept contraception". That would muddy the waters of intrinsic evil as opposed to non-intrinsic evil, but modern people generally don't concern themselves with such distinctions. Our high school religion class, over 40 years ago, was solemnly assured by a young, popular priest, that contraception was up to the individual conscience --- some spucatum tauri about how the word "magisteri um" implies that there are "magisteri a", that the faithful, too, are a "magisterium", and if they don't receive the teaching, it's less than universally binding. I would say that this is the last that the vast majority of the class ever thought about the matter --- "Father said it was okay, so it's okay". (He later ended up being expelled in disgrace from a sexual abuse scandal involving a minor, I can only hope that some of those students managed to second-guess what he taught us, but I wouldn't bet the ranch and the cattle on it. People hear what they want to hear.) |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 7, 2021 11:14:07 GMT
Prevention of disease is morally good. To expose one's partner to an avoidable health risk would be another sin. I agree with you, but I am concerned that there are some who would simply say "condoms are intrinsically evil". No, they're not. They are plastic tubes shaped a certain way. I have heard of them being used to keep water out of the barrel of one's rifle. They could also be used for things like keeping matches dry on a camping trip. The question then would be whether a way could be found to accomplish the same goal (balloons?) without purchasing something manufactured with prevention of conception in mind (it's entirely possible that a sterile person could use one, or agree to have one used, solely to prevent disease, but that would still frustrate the natural end), and thus supporting the contraceptive industry, but that would not make the plastic appliance itself "intrinsically evil". I'm reminded here of someone on one of the forums (not here) saying that the purpose of guns is to kill or injure people or animals. No, the purpose of guns is to put holes in things. Last summer I was working in my garden, had a plastic bucket I'd scavenged from the roadside (cheaper than buying one), and needed to put a few drainage holes in the bottom. Got my .22 air rifle (that little heifer packs a punch, believe me, higher FPS out of the barrel than many .22LR "real" rifles, and $19 on closeout from Walmart on top of that!), shot a few holes in the bottom, problem solved. |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 7, 2021 15:12:53 GMT
"shot a few holes in the bottom, problem solved."
Did you promptly go to confession for your killing of the bucket with that wicked air rifle?
In your scenario, as you stated there is no possibility for procreation, so I would tend to agree that condoms are not an issue. No good can come of the act with or without use of a condom.
The Church is clear in that contraceptives within marriage are against nature. It is also clear that sexual acts outside of marriage are wrong. They are also clear that life should be protected, and children within marriage should be encouraged.
They are not so clear on what I proposed. I understand your point about the slippery slope of bringing contraceptives into the marriage, but that should be a nonstarter for anyone.
To be very simple: Sex inside marriage only. Couples willing to accept children and not use contraceptives. Anything outside of these are wrong.
I guess because anything outside of the two simply stated items above is wrong, the Church doesn't feel the need to list out all the nuanced things that may possibly happen. They are clear that the intent is that children be created within a marriage because of the need for a family unit to exist for the proper raising of children.
We probably agree on your scenario, and I am not saying my scenario is necessarily correct, just that if you are committing that large of a sin anyway, what is one more layer. None of it is acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 7, 2021 15:59:12 GMT
"shot a few holes in the bottom, problem solved." Did you promptly go to confession for your killing of the bucket with that wicked air rifle? In your scenario, as you stated there is no possibility for procreation, so I would tend to agree that condoms are not an issue. No good can come of the act with or without use of a condom. The Church is clear in that contraceptives within marriage are against nature. It is also clear that sexual acts outside of marriage are wrong. They are also clear that life should be protected, and children within marriage should be encouraged. They are not so clear on what I proposed. I understand your point about the slippery slope of bringing contraceptives into the marriage, but that should be a nonstarter for anyone. To be very simple: Sex inside marriage only. Couples willing to accept children and not use contraceptives. Anything outside of these are wrong. I guess because anything outside of the two simply stated items above is wrong, the Church doesn't feel the need to list out all the nuanced things that may possibly happen. They are clear that the intent is that children be created within a marriage because of the need for a family unit to exist for the proper raising of children. We probably agree on your scenario, and I am not saying my scenario is necessarily correct, just that if you are committing that large of a sin anyway, what is one more layer. None of it is acceptable. I think we agree entirely, except that I would quibble on the matter of committing "one more layer" of sin by using a contraceptive in an illicit (pre- or extra-marital), normal, otherwise generative sexual act. To my mind that is one more sin. Is it worse to commit two mortal sins than one? Three mortal sins than two? Eight mortal sins than five? I don't know if the Church has ever proclaimed that some people suffer in hell more than others --- Dante did make these distinctions in his Inferno, but Dante is not the magisterium. Would it be fair for an unrepentant mass murderer and a housewife who misses Mass unrepentantly, without excusing cause, once in awhile, to suffer the same? |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Feb 7, 2021 16:52:55 GMT
Oh, there are degrees if that is what we want to call them.
Without getting too graphic, if during sex outside of marriage (any kind) the parties engage in activities which stack up upon the original sinful act, as in not showing the other party care and love, BSDM, masturbation or any of the other things that might could possibly happen along with using contraception, the intent from the start is against what is right. There are just lots of things that were added to the bad intent.
As far as the murderer vs the housewife missing Mass, I am pretty certain God has the ability to know our hearts and forgive accordingly or punish accordingly. So yes, multiple sins are greater than a single sin, but only to the extent of the intent originally. Of course that is my take on it, and not necessarily what God feels.
So the unrepentant mass murderer is just pure evil. The housewife or mom, may simply be worn out from caring for her family and the pressures of life trying to fulfill her duties of being pulled in 19 different directions and just needs a break that Sunday or three. A loving God certainly would not hold her to the same suffering as the murderer. Again, my take on the matter and nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 8, 2021 2:20:20 GMT
Oh, there are degrees if that is what we want to call them. Without getting too graphic, if during sex outside of marriage (any kind) the parties engage in activities which stack up upon the original sinful act, as in not showing the other party care and love, BSDM, masturbation or any of the other things that might could possibly happen along with using contraception, the intent from the start is against what is right. There are just lots of things that were added to the bad intent. HSD reply: By the time things get to that point --- a couple, not married to one another, who have resolved to commit fornication or adultery --- there will be any number of things that can enter into it, some adding to the overall sinfulness, some not. I really don't think people who have degenerated to that point, are going to parse their manner of expression to one another, and say "we'll commit this sin, but not that one". There are, however, some partners who simply "will not do" Thing X, Y, or Z, but I really have doubt that it is from a conviction that "Thing XYZ" is a mortal sin that offends Almighty God, as a personal preference or taboo against doing Thing XYZ, "it's just too gross/degrading/undignified/unenjoyable/whatever". Again, by the time things have gotten to that point, I doubt parsing degrees of sin really enters into it. I'm a poor one to ask, though, because I've never had complete sexual intercourse outside of marriage. (I have not exactly been a plaster saint, miserere mei Domine, but by modern standards, the sexual sins of my past misspent life were pretty tame. That is not to say that they didn't do their part in putting Our Lord on that cross.)As far as the murderer vs the housewife missing Mass, I am pretty certain God has the ability to know our hearts and forgive accordingly or punish accordingly. So yes, multiple sins are greater than a single sin, but only to the extent of the intent originally. Of course that is my take on it, and not necessarily what God feels. So the unrepentant mass murderer is just pure evil. The housewife or mom, may simply be worn out from caring for her family and the pressures of life trying to fulfill her duties of being pulled in 19 different directions and just needs a break that Sunday or three. A loving God certainly would not hold her to the same suffering as the murderer. Again, my take on the matter and nothing more. HSD reply: it is well foreseeable, that we could just have "too much on our plate", be completely worn out, and "just not be able to do it" on a given Sunday. Assisting at Sunday Mass requires a two-hour time investment, by the time you get ready, drive into town, navigate the traffic, finally get there, spend an hour, then another fifteen minutes listening to the "Liturgy of the Bulletin", i.e., the "please be seated" part after communion, when instead of intimacy with Our Eucharistic Lord, we have to listen to the subject deemed of interest that week, then get back out to the car, drive back home, and so on. Where one makes the decision of "I just can't do it" has to be on the conscience of the individual --- no priest can tell you where to draw that line. As for myself, I was ill as a child with a virus that clings to me to this day, it hit me very hard, and there are days, or parts of days, where I just have to throw up my hands and say "I can't do anything today, I have to rest, life will just have to wait, I'll feel better tomorrow, or maybe later this evening". Some of those times have involved collision with the Sunday Mass obligation. My conscience does not accuse me in such a circumstance. A "grave", "serious", or even "just" or "sufficient" reason for missing Mass will vary with every individual and their circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Feb 8, 2021 13:26:43 GMT
Do you mean homosexuals using condoms in the unnatural act? How so? If that is the case, the only reason I can think of, is that it makes the sin easier to commit, because the sinners do not have to fear disease (HIV, syphilis, etc.) nearly as much --- the risk is always "there" (I needn't be more specific than that), but it is way mitigated. And if so, is it then a general principle that "anything that makes a sin easier, becomes sinful itself, and makes the sin worse than it otherwise would be"? It makes it easier. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 8, 2021 22:38:47 GMT
Do you mean homosexuals using condoms in the unnatural act? How so? If that is the case, the only reason I can think of, is that it makes the sin easier to commit, because the sinners do not have to fear disease (HIV, syphilis, etc.) nearly as much --- the risk is always "there" (I needn't be more specific than that), but it is way mitigated. And if so, is it then a general principle that "anything that makes a sin easier, becomes sinful itself, and makes the sin worse than it otherwise would be"? It makes it easier. True, it makes the sin easier, in that it removes (or at least greatly mitigates) one of the potential bad effects of it. That's something to consider. It's entirely possible that someone contemplating an act where use of a condom would remove/mitigate unwanted bad effects could well say "I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't have a condom, but since I do, then I'll go ahead". But even in the former case, it could well be that the sin has already been committed in one's mind and will, and that the unavailability of a condom only prevents the act itself, not the wish to commit if "if I could do it safely". I would still, however, have to challenge the idea that "anything that makes a sin easier, becomes sinful itself". If a bank robber has access to a car, and can get away quickly, when compared to having commit the robbery on foot, and stand a greater chance of getting caught, does that make the use of a car --- taken all by itself --- sinful, or does making use of a car, in itself, remain morally neutral? Does the bank robber say "I had my mind made up to rob that bank today, but my car wouldn't start, and I dared not try to get away on foot, so I didn't rob it"? Or, to come at it from a slightly different angle, does the bank robber say "I'd rob that bank over there if only I had a car, but I don't have one, so I guess I won't rob it"? |
|
