Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1311306976' post='2273499'] I tried to offer you more details. I was only trying help [/quote] Naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1311307194' post='2273504'] Naturally. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1311305842' post='2273474'] Somewhere between those two. Living together with no sexual contact. Separate beds, etc. [/quote] I would suggest it would be akin to a couple that is dating living together, even if they are living chastely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 22, 2011 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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