Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
#50
First let us deal with this error :

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: And even if the Church has not ruled about such matters, the Church already said that we must follow the teaching of St Alphonsus. And St Alphonsus said that anal and oral foreplay were mortal sins. 

"In any case, there is an extrinsic argument in the fact the Magisterium has taught in the past that the concrete conclusions of St. Alphonsus are always reliable and may be followed, even if one does not agree with his rationale. This is a safer route, and a safer route is the better by far in a matter so important and delicate about which we may be inclined to deceive ourselves."

The Church does not demand that we follow St. Alphonsus. The Church allows one to follow a probable opinion outside of the Sacraments and what is absolutely necessary for Salvation. Alexander VIII, in solemnly approving the Decree of the Holy Office of 7 Dec 1690 condemning various propositions from Jansenism/Rigorism (Dz 1293/DS2303) confirms that it is licit and thus moral for one to follow probable opinion or choose from those which are probable.

On the other hand Innocent XI condemned the idea that any, even slighly, probable opinion could be followed. This is laxism, and was condemned by a Decree if the Holy Office 2 Mar 1679 ( Dz 1151/DS 2101 ff.)

We are left with systems that take into account that any probable opinion with at least a reasonable amount of support is a licit to follow.

The Church has following St. Alphonsus is safe and reliable, thus in doing so one does not sin.

The general standard is that an opinion is probable enough to follow if the Holy See (without a definite definition), St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas, or any other doctor of the Church teaching on moral matters gives it. If it is at held by at least two or three of the major moral theologians who are not doctors, then it can be considered probable. If it is held by many of the more minor writers, then it may also be considered probable.

If St. Alphonsus says a thing is a grave sin, you are safe in following that opinion. However, if notable other writers provide a contrary opinion, then this is also a tenable opinion. In such a case, one cannot bind another person to follow either opinion. The Church has said (Dz 1293/DS 2303) following either is permissible.

You are welcome to hold therefore that oral sexual contact of any kind is a sin. You are even welcome to consider it a grave sin. You are not permitted to bind other to this opinion. To do so is rigorism, which is condemned by the Church.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: There isn't a so called consensus among moral theologians about the permissibility of anal and oral foreplay.

You are right. Few, if any, suggest that it is normal and acceptable.

Still, there are solid arguments for these acts being only venially sinful, or perhaps in certain cases not even sins (but still not the most noble manner of acting)

In such a case, one cannot bind another to accept that these are grave sins—the line you continue to insist upon.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: Jone said that anal foreplay is not a grave sin. So for him, anal foreplay is at least a venial. It does not change anything because we are not permitted to do venial sin because the act remain illicit.

Venial and Moral sin are formally different. As your own quotes show.

Sin is not permitted, period. Yet there is an essential difference between venial and mortal sin.

By mortal sin one loses Sanctifying Grace and without repentance, will end up in Hell. By venial sin neither of these effects happens. One could deliberately commit venial sin hundreds of times a day, piling up lots of time in purgatory, and never lose Sanctifying Grace.

No one is saying "venial sin equals okay". To suggest we are means you are not reading the posts, but reading what you want into them.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: ... a venial sin can easily become a mortal sin because of the repetition of sexuals acts.

Venial sin can never become mortal sin in the proper sense of that term.

If there is a grave degree of malice or if circumstances create a condition where there is a grave degree of malice or negligence required to commit an act whose matter is per se light, then this is not the case of a venial sin becoming a mortal sin. Rather it is the case of a person committing a mortal sin with objectively light matter.

Take the example of stealing $20. Not a grave sin. Light matter. If you take $20 from the till at work it is unjust, illict and you owe restitution, but it is absent other circumstances or malice, a venial sin. If you take it from a poor man or violence, then it is a mortal sin. The matter is light, per se, but in the conditions there had to be a grave degree of malice or a serious harm done to a person, making the matter subjectively grave.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: So catholics are not allowed to have anal or oral foreplay.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

I find it hillarious that the very article I said undermined your whole point (such acts are always grave sins) you keep quoting as if it does support your point :
"Whether this prohibition is gravely binding or not is another question ... the matter may be venial."

I am not arguing that such acts are licit, but against your claim that they are always grave sins. Dom Hugh makes that same case I do.

Do you actually read your sources and take time to think about your arguments and where you might be wrong?



We must not fall into the temptation of progressivism : the more recent theologians trump the more old theologians 
(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: Lying is intrinsically evil (St Thomas, St Alphonsus) as you said. But St Alphonsus allowed mental reservation. And the act of mental reservation is not the same as the act of lying !

Red Herring.

No one mentioned mental reservation. That's not lying, but not all lying is grave sins, even though its contra naturam.

Your friend asks if you deposited his $10 check yet (but you hadn't) as it wasn't on his statement yet and he was trying to reconcile his accounts. You forgot, but in shame and human respect you say, "Yeah, sorry, I did it yesterday, I'll bet it shows up on the accounts soon." Then you run off to do it right then.

That's a lie. It's certainly not about grave matter, but it's still a sin. It is a venial sin. It is not permitted, but it doesn't have to be confessed.

You were talking about sins contra naturam. My whole point was to show that not all sins contra naturam were mortal sin in every case. Many, probably most if we consider how many "white lies" are told, are probably venial.

That doesn't make them right, but it also doesn't make them mortal sins.

I appreciate your desire, Tamill, to encourage good Catholic behavior, but you have to be very careful, especially if you are not studied in moral theology (and given you can't make the proper distinctions, don't understand the various moral systems and their liceity, and seem to have a rigorist bent), that you do not demand of people too much, such that you push them into grave sin, or worse, push them away from having that sin absolved.

When people have a bad habit of venial sin, telling them it is a mortal sin is probably one of the best way to harden them in the sin, and leave the Faith as a result.

If you do that, you are responsible for that, which is why generally only priests and those who have done the studies should be advising people on these matters.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language) - by MagisterMusicae - 04-18-2018, 04:46 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)