Loading ...
It is occasionally said of the members of this Society that we are too strident in our rhetoric; that we might “catch more flies with honey than vinegar”; or that we are not properly filled with Christian charity, what with our criticisms of sodomites and occasionally polemical language. While I will not vouch for the impeccability of anyone who writes here, these criticisms are more a reflection of the sorry state of modern Christians’ historical perspective and a rather profound misapprehension of what constitutes that great virtue of Charity. Sometimes, like Hamlet, one must be cruel only to be kind.
To help illustrate this, I excerpt a passage from a very nice article by David Mills, Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics:
Most well-read Christians know the two most famous stories of the early Church’s approach to dialogue. St. Polycarp tells us that the apostle John once went to the public bath in Ephesus and found inside a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. John ran out crying, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”
Polycarp himself once met the heretic Marcion walking down the street. Marcion hated the creator-God of the Hebrews, and to get rid of Him had tossed out the Old Testament and much of the New and rewrote the bits he kept. Marcion asked Polycarp, “Do you know me?” and Polycarp answered, “I do know you. You are the firstborn of Satan.”
The point of quoting this is not just to remind us all of what cool guys Sts. John and Polycarp were, though it also serves that purpose. The point is to realize that it was not uncharitable for them, and it is not uncharitable for us, sometimes — indeed, quite often — to call a spade a spade, or a sin a sin. As I have often discussed with Iosephus, we are all of us tainted with the spirit of modernism — we are loath to insist strongly on the truths of the Faith or the prerogatives of the Church. We all believe in dialogue and hate making enemies. Many of us, indeed, have a nagging temptation towards the heresy of Origen — that Satan either doesn’t really exist, or if he does that, well, can’t we just make some sort of a mutually beneficial arrangement with him, just for a time? One wouldn’t want to be extreme, would one?
Well, occasionally, yes, we have to be extremists. Not in the sense of abandoning logic or becoming fanatics, as that word seems to imply, but in the sense of being unyielding: to make others, and ourselves, stand out a bit — or a lot — because of our adherence to the truths of the Gospel and, these days, to the truths of the natural law with which God made men. It makes us uneasy to do so — divisive, unfriendly, dogmatic! But as Fr. Bryce Sibley reminds us in a recent podcast, we cannot, we must not dialogue with evil. And part of what we do, as charitable Christians, is do whatever it takes to avoid dialogue with evil, conversation with Satan — both for ourselves and for those whom we love, which includes everyone. And sometimes you might have to yell at someone a bit to make him stop talking with Satan. And that’s ok. Not all the time, of course — tireless advocates of patient, peaceful conversation and conversion whenever possible, we! — but God gave us righteous indignation for a purpose. Let’s not be afraid to use it.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Scholastic,
There is a difference between being exposed to a temptation outside oneself as is often the case living in the world versus seeking out/viewing pornography out of curiosity (the latter apparently is the example Victoria gives with regard to her proposal that it is not a sin).
Viewing pornographic material out of curiosity is a sin unless you’re motivations are something above and well beyond personal curiosity (as in the case of the police man briefly confirming the evidence of child pornography).
For example, do you think it’s not a sin for some man who just gets an offer from some woman at work to check out her posing sexually at her house? Get real people. It’s a sin at the very least by presenting oneself in a near occasion of sin; not to even mention glances of impurity. To say one won’t look lustly in that case is absurd (what exactly would be the intent?). We’re not talking about delivering a baby or “ethnic” nudity.
As mentioned, there’s a huge difference between being bombarded with temptations versus seeking out occasions for them. The latter always being the case with pornographic material.
Mr. Johnboy316 writes: “the latter apparently is the example Victoria gives with regard to her proposal that it is not a sin”.
There may be sin from curiosity, but not necessarily.
22 Q.167 A.1 http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS167.html#SSQ167OUTP1
The error Miss Victoria was objecting to was the notion that curiosity of pornography was sinful without qualification. Since those qualifications have been granted by others, there is not an argument. But there has been a witch hunt because of a refusal to recognize Miss Victoria’s position which is no different from that above by St.Thomas..
Further, when a person states that pornography is “objectively sinful”, Miss Victoria’s objection is the first obvious one to make, since an object of the sensitive appetite can only be a remote cause of sin, and further as St. Thomas explains, can be viewed in certain circumstance..
Further we know by empirical evidence, temptation is relative to the individual in regard to material difference. A circumstance which is a temptation for one man is not by necessity a temptation to another. For instance, the objects of the sensitive appetite vary according to sex. Thus while a beckoning prostitute can be a temptation to lust for a man, a woman is not equally moved.
We further know by empirical evidence, the sensitive appetite of a young man often varies from that of an older man. Thus that same beckoning prostitute is in most instances a much greater temptation to a younger man. Thus what constitutes a near occasion of sin is relative to the individual.
Thank you, A, for turning this back on. I wanted the oportunity to thank TP for jumping back into the fray! As is probably obvious to all concerned I am a novice at this blog/comments thing. I have to say that I don’t know how y’all do it! I was totally exhausted last night from the experience. And you guys do this all the time! I admire your stamina! If I ever do this again (unlikely!) I think I will post as ‘Granny’ so as to solicit some sympathy and plead for a slower pace!
OK, are we all agreed that viewing porn is subjectively sinful? TP, I was not arguing “exceptions” because to argue that something is objectively sinful, with certain exceptions, is a contradiction in terms. I reused your example because it seemed the simplest one, the one with which no one disagreed, and all it takes is one valid example to prove the subjective nature.
So, I think we are all in agreement on that. Ditto with occasions of sin. I think we can slip into a habit of thinking of porn as objectively sinful because it is ubiquitous and because we clearly see the devastating effects it can have on individuals, families & society. But it is still a bad habit of mind because by it we can be easily led to rash judgment and to forget that behind every situation is a real individual, with real difficulties of one sort or another. It is not enough to issue blanket condemnations; we must compassionate with individuals.
OK, enough sermonizing. JSP made a valid criticism in saying that I had been ambigious. I can’t possibly reread this whole thread and explain all my meanings. I will take the last example mentioned by johnboy, that of curiosity. I was thinking here of the case of a 9 yr old girl (this is a true story) who, out of purely innocent curiosity, picked up a porn mag and took a look. She was overcome by guilt at what she saw. She had probably heard something to the effect of its existence - maybe in JSP’s parish, since his pastor is in the habit of mentioning it from the pulpit to sometimes innocent ears! - but didn’t understand what it was all about. She confessed to having looked at porn. The confessor, not understanding the situation, took it as a serious confession of lust and gave her what he considered an appropriate penance. The poor thing was devastated and it wasn’t until her mother was able to fit the pieces of the puzzle together that she could regain any peace of mind.
So, this single example should serve to illustrate some of the points I was trying to make. That said, thank you for allowing me to be a part of this discussion. God bless you all.
p.s. for those with a sense of humour: one of my boys (don’t panic, he’s 21 yrs old and none of this was new to him) suggested that from now on I should post as ‘Porn Peddler’ !! So, if I ever give in to this suggestion you’ll know who it is!
JSP,
I was not offended by your accusations because they were far too off the mark. But thanks for the apology none the less.
Not trying to reopen a conflict that seems to have reached a relatively peaceful point (and in which I haven’t really been involved), but I can pinpoint the thing that struck me as most odd in this conversation. I agree that there are (rare) circumstances in which looking at pornography would not be sinful, I agree that discussing such matters with one’s children is important, and I agree that it’s good for a confessor to inquire into the circumstances of the sin before assigning a penance. I agree that people should be properly educated about sexual desire and lust so that they understand what is sinful and what is not; otherwise they’re sometimes apt to give up on chastity completely, having realized that they are incapable of avoiding sexual attraction altogether. And of course I agree that compassion is a good thing.
What struck me wrong was your Franciscan friend’s way of putting the point. “Father, I’ve been looking at pornography.” “Did you lust?”
Technically, yes, it is the lusting that is sinful. If you’re a child who doesn’t know what you’re doing, or a cop gathering evidence for a case, or a prisoner in a cell without windows and with porn plastered on every inch of ceiling, floor and wall and you have to open your eyes sometimes in order to feed and dress yourself… fine. If you’re not lusting, you’re not sinning.
It just seems to me that, from a pastoral angle, the vast majority of cases are not like that, and asking penitents, “did you lust?” makes it sound as though this is a distinction that people should regularly be worrying about. This is likely to create in some people’s minds yet another avenue for self-deception. (”Yes, I look at porn websites all the time, but only so the other guys won’t think I’m sissy. I’m not *lusting* when I do it!”)
There are some cases, like lying, repeating others’ sins, or physical affection between non-married people in a relationship ordered towards marriage, where good and sinful ends and intentions can become quite tightly intertwined. Careful questions are sometimes needed to determine whether an act was sinful, and to what degree. But looking at pornography isn’t really like this. There’s nothing redeeming about it, so it’s not a case where you normally need to draw really fine-grained distinctions about what makes it sinful.
If the priest wants to rightly understand the circumstances of the porn-viewing penitent, couldn’t he find a better way to approach it? Asking where the porn came from, how long he looked at it, whether it was the first time or whether this is a frequent occurrence… wouldn’t these sorts of questions allow the priest to distinguish between the confused nine-year-old and the serious addict? If the person confesses to bookmarking pornographic websites or keeping stacks of dirty magazines in his closet, it probably isn’t necessary to ask, “And are you lusting?”
By the way, Victoria, I quite know the experience you’re talking about — when you get embroiled in a blog debate like this, it can be amazing how much energy you find yourself investing in it for a day or so! But don’t think that every comment need be like that. Even if you don’t want to get embroiled in debates, you could still offer less controversial comments from time to time. You can’t always be quite sure which ones will explode and which won’t, but after awhile you start to get some idea.
All I know, Clara, is that the saintly Franciscan whom I mentioned has been hearing confessions for nigh on 50 years and I therefore take it as a given that he understands these nuances and pastoral issues better than I.
Okay, now I see where you’re coming from, Victoria . . . well, to some extent. I think the debate here is about looking at pornography *per se,* not about consent or knowledge. I ignore these variables since I have not been trying to judge souls but to stipulate objective gravity. So of course the girl in question did not sin simply by “looking” at pornography — she didn’t have sufficient knowledge or consent. I don’t think that her curiosity was sinful, certainly not mortally. For future reference, when I write about these things, I am referring only to knowing, consenting adults, which I should have made explicit to begin with.
Is looking at pornography objectively sinful? What do you make of my distinction concerning looking at porn *qua* porn? In an ethics course I once saw a movie set in WWII. A British warship was trying to attack a German one, but in order to do so it had to sail through a group of floating British sailors. The Br. captain knew this, but followed the battle plan and sailed ahead — killing many of his own men in the process. Is killing innocent men objectively sinful? I’d say yes. Was this captain sinning? Not if he had no other, better way to attack. He followed the law of double effect. Killing his innocent men was not his intention — it was accidental collateral damage, even if foreseen. Cops looking at pornography as evidence don’t consent to look at porn *per se* — they look at it *qua* evidence. One may knowingly kill innocent people without being morally responsible — this doesn’t mean that killing innocent people is itself morally neutral. All it means is that one may do it as an unintended, unwanted side-effect of a moral act that is important enough to incur the damage necessary. I argue that looking at porn as such is objectively wrong, but all the people I’ve listed (cops, etc.) don’t look at porn as such.
Or am I completely off-base? I am not really used to designating sins as objective and subjective, as I’ve admitted before. Correct me if I’m spouting gibberish.
Mr. Petrus writes: “killing many of his own men in the process. Is killing innocent men objectively sinful? I’d say yes”
No, it’s not a sin, but it is objectively an evil. Which is the reason double effect applies even to the magistrate who acts for the greater good.
Okay, Scholastic, I think you have the same problem with this use of objective and subjective that I do. I am using “objectively sinful” and “subjectively sinful” as, I think, Johnboy, tried to explain it to me. “Objectively sinful” doesn’t mean “sinful in actual fact” but “sinful when addressing only the action itself.” The action itself is wrong, regardless of the person’s knowledge — and Johnboy calls this “objectively sinful.” Actually, I object (hah!) that it is incorrect to call something a sin unless a person knows and consents. But those are the terms in which other people discuss these matters, and the way I thought Victoria used the terms. So I used the terms this way, even though I share your concern for the wording.
Killing innocent people *as such* is objectively wrong, and is always sinful when one knows and consents to doing so. The British general doesn’t consent to the act *as such,* per killing, though.
My argument that looking at pornography *as such* is objectively wrong, and when one knowingly consents to look, one necessarily commits a sin by that fact alone. Cops, censors, etc., don’t consent to looking at porn *as such.* Lust is a distinct matter.
Please refer to me as Tobias-Petrus, Tobias, or TP, not Mr. Petrus.
Sin is in the will, which is why there is double effect. God cannot be the cause of evil. Neither can his laws cause evil per se. But the magistrate can order the death of a criminal for the common good. Thus the magistrate acts for the common good, the death is accidental.
See 2-2 Q.64 A7
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS064.html#SSQ64A7THEP1
Summa Theologica
Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?
Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended
Well, yes, Scholastic, I agree with you. That’s why I wrote my clarification — “objectively sinful” in my first post is intended in the same sense as “objectively wrong” in your sense. I was using the expressions that previous people did, expressions I myself would rather not use for the reasons you presented. So I have no disagreement with you.
“OK, are we all agreed that viewing porn is subjectively sinful?”
No, we are not in agreement.
Yes, sin is in the will. However, to intentionally look at porn is an act of the will.
Men addicted to sins of lust and impurity may after a while lose any sense of lustful excitement that accompanied the sins years prior. The sins become rote and habitual. Post-Vatican II morality (as articulated in some parts of the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church and by Victoria and Scholastica on this blog), attempts to assuage the guilt of these sinners by stating that perhaps these sins are not mortal due to the force of habit. Again, I reference an article from Fr. Chad Ripperger on the sin of Onan published in the Latin Mass Magazine, when I say this novel view of sin is just dead wrong.
Regarding the 9 year-old girl who viewed porno out of curiosity. First of all, your description of the hypothetical traditional priest who chastises the girl in the confession, in my mind only lessens your traditional Catholic bona fides. The awesome, serious, well-trained priests of the FSSP (and from my experiences I’ll say the SSPX too) are the most kind and compassionate priests I’ve ever met in the confessional. They tell it like it is, no holds-barred, from the pulpit, and then they are as gentle as the good Lord in the confessional. Again, I’m surprised that this dynamic (pulpit vs the confessional) is a new concept for you.
Secondly, the fact remains that if the 9 year old girl had reached the age of reason, she would, in fact, commit a mortal sin by viewing porno, even out of curiosity.
Yes, Virginia, I mean Victoria, that means little Sally would go straight to Hell, no passing Go, no collecting $200, if she died prior to making a confession or a perfect act of contrition.
According to another FSSP priest’s sermon on mortal vs venial sins, there is a certain saint (I believe it was Alphonus Ligouri) who had it revealed to him, the sight of the soul of a seven-year old child burning in Hell after having committed one mortal sin.
One mortal sin merits Hell.
Do you believe this Victoria?
Do you believe it?
Or do you believe it an outrage to suggest that a little child, who has reached the age of reason, would be sent to Hell for committing a single mortal sin?
Is it outrageous to you?
Please, answer.
If you intend to look at pornography, unless it is a necessary near occasion of sin (the police officer example), you commit a mortal sin regardless of your reason for looking.
One final note. You again felt it necessary to disparage the good name of my dear priest by suggesting him discussing matters of graphic sexual morality in the presence of the congregation.
You could not be more wrong.
Nothing I’ve said on this blog intimates that he did this.
He takes his responsibilities as a pastor of souls more seriously than any priest I’ve ever met.
I refrain from making a drawn out contrast to your own graphic tongue on this blog.
But I will end by re-iterating what my FSSP priest has stated from the pulpit; and this my dear woman is as graphic as he gets (and it’s as graphic as needed, outside the confessional):
If you have no intent to look at an indecent image and once you look at it, you don’t consent to continue looking, NO SIN.
If you have no intent to look at an indecent image and once you look at it, you have partial consent (don’t look away quickly), VENIAL SIN.
If you have no intent to look at an image and once you look at it, you give consent, MORTAL SIN.
If you intend to look at an indecent image, MORTAL SIN.
I seriously think Scholastic and Victoria are screwy…really screwy on this issue.
Scholastica, I understand your very goofball point regarding the fact that sin is in the will and curiosity could in fact be the gateway/temptation stage to sin per se and not the sin.
However, I personally do not find that particular argument practically or even actually acceptable given the fact that sexual temptations [above all temptations] are clearly snowballed after the curiosity stage. And under all circumstances it is never…EVER prudent to even be projecting “curiosity” as a reason to rationalize recreational use of pornography. That’s what you’re both doing, actually.
I guess I haven’t been as clear as I should be…
…but viewing pornography (above all things) is absolutely never to be done with curiosity…that is actually one reason you sin! After curiosity, you’re lusting! I seriously am at a loss as to how one could actually materialize his curiosity via viewing pornography and not lust.
It’s like exalting the idea that masturbation could in fact not be a mortal sin given very serious psychological issues of the person commiting that sin. But that’s absolutely stupid to use that as one’s basis for deciphering whether one sins.
Just like with pornography, you can’t poo-poo viewing it under any circumstances like you’re obviously both projecting. Get real.
Additionally, Scholastica seems to deceptively point out St. Thomas Aquinas’ apparent discussion on sin. However, has Scholastica seriously discovered that the object of one’s curiosity (in viewing pornography) is in fact seeking out sexual stimuli? This is the crux of the issue. The object sought is the viewing of pornography, no matter how you seem to exalt the “curiosity” issue. Curiosity is NOT THE OBJECT SOUGHT. A sin is a disordered object sought. Get it right.
I also have a question…do either of you use pornography?
Tobias Petrus,
Yes, no doubt we agree, I would not expect it otherwise. In fact, the actual substantive disagreements have been few. The errors have been due to the incorrect use of terms.
Which is why I don’t intend to be tedious or obtuse, but your use of “objectively sinful” in your previous post simply added to the confusion, and even more so added to the confusion because you where otherwise making proper distinctions which would lead to the conclusion that “objectively sinful” is a correct term. To witt:
Tobias Petrus writes: “killing many of his own men in the process. Is killing innocent men objectively sinful? I’d say yes. Was this captain sinning?”
As you know, in every discussion, first define your terms. Or prove them, depending.
Tobias,
As per the objective sin discussion:
It is, in my opinion, very important to call all actions, thoughts, or words that fall objectively in the category of sin as “objective sin”.
Whether one is guilty or not does not undercut the objectiveness. That’s where the subjective part of sin comes into play.
You’re creative technical point only undercuts the objectiveness of all actions contrary to Divine and natural law.
It is important to keep them objective sins.
Whether someone is guilty of committing an objective sin is in part due to the subjective element; which really does not go very far since the moral law (particularly the serious sins) is written in everyone’s heart unless they’ve been brainwashed or so hardened due to past sins.
The principle of double effect, as I understand it simply states that one who, defending himself or those whom he has the duty to protect, meets the aggression of an aggressor equally* and as an indirect result ends the life of the aggressor. Read the Catechism on this issue.
*equally is important to note; as one cannot, in self defense, kill an aggressor with more aggression; only can one meet the aggression at most equally. As an example it is objectively sinful to kill someone who is threatening you but is clearly not intending to harm you!
“Secondly, the fact remains that if the 9 year old girl had reached the age of reason, she would, in fact, commit a mortal sin by viewing porno, even out of curiosity.”
John-Boy, not if she didn’t know what the stuff was that she was looking at, which I highly doubt. Her curiosity may have been little more than “What’s this here?” That may be wrong in a child of course, but how was she to know what she was stumbling into? If she had been properly raised, she couldn’t know what it was or what it meant — you say children of that age shouldn’t even know what porn is, so presumably she would know neither how to recognize it on sight nor that she should avoid it. (Except to the extent that she should have been taught to divert her eyes from nakedness generally speaking, which makes sense for her to know.) Granted, children of 7 are of reasoning age. IF she had been told not to look at the magazine in question, she committed a sin. IF she had been told that it was a really, really big sin to look at it (wherever it was) then that could have been mortal. (I didn’t comment on that since Victoria didn’t state it.) If she continued looking even after she realized that the stuff was “naughty” then she was culpable. But if the girl just stumbled across the magazine and had never been told, “don’t go in daddy’s closet” or something like that, how was she supposed to know it was forbidden? On this one I agree with you *in principle* on the ability of children of that age to commit mortal sins, and if the girl now went back and looked at the stuff, she’d be committing a mortal sin. But I’d say the facts as presented by Victoria support her interpretation.
joe six pack and johnboy316,
As I wrote previously, I would be glad to continue the discussion if I can expect a drastic improvement in civility and intellectual honesty. The choice is yours to make.
You appear to have made you choice.
Gah, Scholastic and Johnboy, I’ve willingly adopted both of your quibbling terminologies. I used “objective sin” so Johnboy wouldn’t complain (he discoursed at length on subjective/objective just a few days ago, Scholastic, whence I got my definition of the words), and then I used “objective wrong/evil” so Scholastic wouldn’t complain, then Johnboy complains. It’s like the Aesop fable about the man, his son, and the donkey they were taking across a bridge to sell in the marketplace. Everybody had an opinion — one person said that the man should ride the donkey, the other said the boy should, one man said both should walk, one said they should carry the donkey, which resulted in the donkey falling off the bridge into the river before it got to market. Point: whichever word you insist I use, I think I’ve explained what I mean. So do you think I’m right in my argument or not? If either of you still objects to the aforementioned terminology, please direct your objections at each other, not at me.
Plus, John-Boy, I was not writing about double effect in the context of evil done to an aggressor — the men killed in my example are the captain’s men. I was talking about any unintended negative consequence of a morally good act.
Plus, I recommend that the current webmaster, whoever that may be, seriously consider shutting down this discussion again.
Oh, and in my post responding to JSP, I accidentally wrote John-Boy; apologies to both for the confusion.
Tobias Petrus,
It was a pleasure. You should wander over to the paleoconservative blogs, Or Chronicles. It would be nice to have your imput.
Thanks for the compliment, Scholastic. I screamed myself hoarse at Dr. Fleming over Terri Schiavo’s murder last year. Last I checked, our mutual accusations from last Holy Week are still accessible. I have posted at Chronicles since then, but only recently (as of Pat Buchanan’s article on the Abdul Rahman case) have I recovered enough from foolish pride to use my own name again (I’d rashly vowed never to visit the site again).