kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307416' post='2273515'] As I was reading Newadvent I found this excerpt which I read and agree with. As far as I can tell it expresses traditional Catholic morality, nothing more or less. "As to the proximate occasion, it may be of the sort that is described as necessary, that is, such as a person cannot abandon or get rid of. Whether this impossibility be physical or moral does not matter for the determination of the principles hereinafter to be laid down. Or it may be voluntary, that is within the competency of one to remove. Moralists distinguish between a proximate occasion which is continuous and one which, whilst it is unquestionably proximate, yet confronts a person only at intervals. It is certain that one who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once voluntary and continuous is bound to remove it. A refusal on the part of a penitent to do so would make it imperative for the confessor to deny absolution. It is not always necessary for the confessor to await the actual performance of this duty before giving absolution; he may be content with a sincere promise, which is the minimum to be required. Theologians agree that one is not obliged to shun the proximate but necessary occasions. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile (no one is bound to do what is impossible). There is no question here of freely casting oneself into the danger of sin. The assumption is that stress of unavoidable circumstances has imposed this unhappy situation. All that can then be required is the employment of such means as will make the peril of sin remote. The difficulty is to determine when a proximate occasion is to be regarded as not physically (that is plain enough) but morally necessary. Much has been written by theologians in the attempt to find a rule for the measurement of this moral necessity and a formula for its expression, but not successfully. It seems to be quite clear that a proximate occasion may be deemed necessary when it cannot be given up without grave scandal or loss of good name or without notable temporal or spiritual damage." Would two homosexual men living together in a 'romantic' yet abstinent relationship be approved of under these conditions? Certainly it is a proximate occasion of sin as opposed to remote. Certainly it is entirely voluntary. Nobody forces them to live together. It is absolutely not necessary. Therefore I conclude that it is a moral obligation of both men to remove themselves from this voluntary proximate occasion of sin. [/quote] Thank you for taking the time. Truly, I appreciate it. I don't agree--as you can imagine. But I do appreciate you digging up the appropriate teaching on the matter.
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1311307547' post='2273522'] Okay, let's throw another wrench in the works. Let's say they are not Catholic, and thus do not have the aspect of receiving absolution from a confessor. Still sinful/wrong? [/quote] Objective morality will not change. It is likely that their personal culpability is diminished because of their lack of proper guidance in the matter.
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307671' post='2273529'] Objective morality will not change. It is likely that their personal culpability is diminished because of their lack of proper guidance in the matter. [/quote] Would they still be morally obligated to remove themselves from that situation?
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311307622' post='2273526'] Thank you for taking the time. Truly, I appreciate it. I don't agree--as you can imagine. But I do appreciate you digging up the appropriate teaching on the matter. [/quote] Some people assume that since I reflect Catholic teaching on the issues, that I have not thought them through and am simply parroting the party line. I think I can demonstrate well enough, with this issue as an example, that this is not the case.
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307769' post='2273535'] Some people assume that since I reflect Catholic teaching on the issues, that I have not thought them through and am simply parroting the party line. I think I can demonstrate well enough, with this issue as an example, that this is not the case. [/quote] I still think you're a jughead.
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1311307749' post='2273532'] Would they still be morally obligated to remove themselves from that situation? [/quote] Absolutely. It is still a proximate and voluntary occasion of sin. However, they may not be personally culpable for not choosing to do so, because they may have been given misleading guidance from non-Catholic sources. [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311307825' post='2273537'] I still think you're a jughead. [/quote] [mod]personal attack[/mod] Edited July 23, 2011 by Lil Red personal attack
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307879' post='2273539'] Absolutely. It is still a proximate and voluntary occasion of sin. However, they may not be personally culpable for not choosing to do so, because they may have been given misleading guidance from non-Catholic sources. [/quote] Hm. Interesting.
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307879' post='2273539'] [mod]personal attack[/mod] [/quote] We should make t-shirts. "I'm with meathead." "I'm with someone who's going to burn in the eternal flames of Hell fire" (The second one might need to be a wrap-around type thing) Edited July 23, 2011 by Lil Red
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311307954' post='2273546'] We should make t-shirts. "I'm with meathead." "I'm with someone who's going to burn in the eternal flames of Hell fire" (The second one might need to be a wrap-around type thing) [/quote] This made me lol.
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1311307948' post='2273545'] Hm. Interesting. [/quote] Would you modify anything I've posted considering proximate occasions of sin?
Lil Red Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311307954' post='2273546'] We should make t-shirts. "I'm with meathead." "I'm with someone who's going to burn in the eternal flames of Hell fire" (The second one might need to be a wrap-around type thing) [/quote] with flames.
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1311308095' post='2273554'] with flames. [/quote] You just say that because you're a redhead
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311308077' post='2273553'] Would you modify anything I've posted considering proximate occasions of sin? [/quote] No, I don't believe so, and I think that what you've posted is probably not refutable for Catholics (though, of course, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible). I'm just still not certain precisely where I stand on the matter, as I believe it would be possible for two chaste SSA individuals, in some form, to have a long term, non-sinful [s]relationship[/s] companionship.
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1311308233' post='2273558'] No, I don't believe so, and I think that what you've posted is probably not refutable for Catholics (though, of course, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible). I'm just still not certain precisely where I stand on the matter, as I believe it would be possible for two chaste SSA individuals, in some form, to have a long term, non-sinful [s]relationship[/s] companionship. [/quote] Some form yes, though I think it would have to take the form of the latter one I described: a relationship as friends, not as romantic partners.
Lil Red Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311308204' post='2273557'] You just say that because you're a redhead [/quote] flames are fun. red is fun. redheads are the funnest. (M-T will back me up on this.)
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1311308402' post='2273566'] flames are fun. red is fun. redheads are the funnest. (M-T will back me up on this.) [/quote] I've got two in my family, and I'm going to propose to one in the next few months. Trust me: I know [i]all[/i] about it.
Lil Red Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311308572' post='2273574'] I've got two in my family, and I'm going to propose to one in the next few months. Trust me: I know [i]all[/i] about it. [/quote] good man.
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) I'm a brunette guy. Well, I mean, I'm not a brunette [i]guy[/i]. A guy who goes for brunettes. Edited July 22, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1311308628' post='2273579'] good man. [/quote] I'm half Irish and half Italian, and while my skin and hair are all pretty dark, my beard is infused with a whole bunch of red. These gingers are getting to me!
cmotherofpirl Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1311308233' post='2273558'] No, I don't believe so, and I think that what you've posted is probably not refutable for Catholics (though, of course, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible). I'm just still not certain precisely where I stand on the matter, as I believe it would be possible for two chaste SSA individuals, in some form, to have a long term, non-sinful [s]relationship[/s] companionship. [/quote] One of my online friends has been in a live-in SSA relationship for many many years. They have been chaste for probably last 20 of those because partner A is a catholic and partner B respects and loves her enough to stay chaste together so they can both get to heaven. With God, all things are possible.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now