Not Putting One's Own Soul Into Moral Danger

[AudreyGrace]

Hey guys, I need some help finding quotes from either the Bible, Church documents, or saints that deal with not putting yourself in moral danger in order to evangelize for others. Example being- why reading Fifty Shades of Grey is wrong, even if you plan on reading it to blog about why it's wrong and evangelize to people about why it's wrong. I need something substantial about how this puts one's own soul in danger and is not recommended for bringing other's closer to Christ. Thanks!

[franciscanheart]

That doesn't even make sense.

If we're going to follow that logic, I apparently need to have a lot of sex with a lot of women so I can evangelize about why it's wrong. Probably the same is true of being drunk all the time, and swearing. You know, so I can speak from experience.

[Vincent Vega]

Moral Danger is my middle name.

[TheUbiquitous]

What's your confirmation name?

[Nihil Obstat]

I actually was told in very certain terms by a priest that intentionally putting yourself in a near occasion of mortal sin is in and of itself mortally sinful.
I think Thomas Aquinas wrote about this. Too tired to look it up.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1346298821' post='2476163']
Hey guys, I need some help finding quotes from either the Bible, Church documents, or saints that deal with not putting yourself in moral danger in order to evangelize for others. Example being- why reading Fifty Shades of Grey is wrong, even if you plan on reading it to blog about why it's wrong and evangelize to people about why it's wrong. I need something substantial about how this puts one's own soul in danger and is not recommended for bringing other's closer to Christ. Thanks!
[/quote]

I see that you are asking why this is wrong, not why this is either acceptable or good. I would just add that nothing good can come from evil. Look up Galatians 5:19-21

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[b] Occasions of Sin[/b]

Occasions of Sin are external circumstances--whether of things or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]persons[/url]--which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and theoccasion of sin. The cause of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act orvicious habit which we call [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. There can be no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm"]doubt[/url] that in general the same[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm"]obligation[/url] which binds us to refrain from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] requires us to shun its occasion. [i]Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media[/i] (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it).
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm"]Theologians[/url] distinguish between the proximate and the remote occasion. They are not altogether at one as to the precise value to be attributed to the terms. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09418b.htm"]De Lugo[/url] definesproximate occasion (De poenit. disp. 14, n. 149) as one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url], or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]person[/url]. The remote occasion lacks these elements. All [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm"]theologians[/url] are agreed that there is no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm"]obligation[/url] to avoid the remoteoccasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url].
As to the proximate occasion, it may be of the sort that is described as [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url], that is, such as a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]person[/url] 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 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm"]voluntary[/url], that is within the competency of one to remove. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14601a.htm"]Moralists[/url]distinguish between a proximate occasion which is continuous and one which, whilst it is unquestionably proximate, yet confronts a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]person[/url] only at intervals. It is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm"]certain[/url] that one who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15506a.htm"]voluntary[/url] 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 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm"]absolution[/url]. It is not always [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url] for theconfessor to await the actual performance of this [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05215a.htm"]duty[/url] before giving [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm"]absolution[/url]; he may be content with a sincere promise, which is the minimum to be required. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm"]Theologians[/url]agree that one is not [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm"]obliged[/url] to shun the proximate but [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url] occasions. [i]Nemo tenetur ad impossibile[/i] (no one is bound to do what is impossible). There is no question here of freely casting oneself into the danger of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. 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 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] remote. The difficulty is to determine when a proximate occasion is to be regarded as not physically (that is plain enough) but morally [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url]. Much has been written by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm"]theologians[/url] 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 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url] when it cannot be given up without grave [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm"]scandal[/url] or loss ofgood name or without notable temporal or spiritual damage.[size=2]

[b] About this page[/b]

[b]APA citation.[/b] Delany, J. (1911). Occasions of Sin. In [u]The Catholic Encyclopedia.[/u] New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 29, 2012 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm
[b]MLA citation.[/b] Delany, Joseph. "Occasions of Sin." [u]The Catholic Encyclopedia.[/u] Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 29 Aug. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm>.
[b]Transcription.[/b] This article was transcribed for New Advent by Tomas Hancil.
[b]Ecclesiastical approbation.[/b] [i]Nihil Obstat.[/i] February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. [i]Imprimatur.[/i] +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
[/size]

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1346302182' post='2476182']
[s]Moral [/s]Danger to Self and Surrounding Populace is my middle name.
[/quote]

Fixed that for you. You are welcome.

Edited August 30, 2012 by FuturePriest387

[PhuturePriest]

As for actually responding to the post, much of what everyone has said is true (Except of course USAirways' jargon). I can tell you from much experience the evils of sexual addiction, but I could have told you all that you needed to know on why it is wrong without having went through the experiences I had. Despite secular belief, you do not need experience in something to tell people why it is right or wrong. It just comes down to common sense after a while. Read up on the apologetics of this matter and I am sure you will be able to give a very deep and wise blog post about the book in question.

[Nihil Obstat]

I would also be willing to argue that purchasing Fifty Shades of Grey would be morally wrong. Not mortal, I think, but certainly not something a Catholic should do. It would be putting money into the pockets of those who choose to purchase the book for resale, the people who choose to publish the book, and ultimately the person who wrote it as well. Besides that, it encourages more books like it to be written.

[bernadette d]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1346303904' post='2476196']
I actually was told in very certain terms by a priest that intentionally putting yourself in a near occasion of mortal sin is in and of itself mortally sinful.
I think Thomas Aquinas wrote about this. Too tired to look it up.
[/quote]

True, we may never do wrong that good may come of it.

[Ice_nine]

have you ever read the 50 shades 1-2 star reviews on amazon? Pretty funny imo.

Oh dear, my ability to contribute to threads I see has further declined.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346304646' post='2476199']
I see that you are asking why this is wrong, not why this is either acceptable or good. I would just add that nothing good can come from evil. Look up Galatians 5:19-21

ed
[/quote]

I like the holy bible.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Someone offered me the koran to have a squiz at, i prayed in thought before i opened it that the LORD would reveal to me what he wanted me to see, so i opened to a random page and 'hey presto' it said " Someone whom refuses to convert is an infidel and must die." And i was like ok have your book back i have seen what i needed to see,and this instant grat from prayer isn't the usual for me lol. Don't read the book if the church has blacklisted it, i'm told the vatican has a black list of books and movies, i know of one that is black listed the divinci code. Google vatican official, in there search engine just write black listed books and movies, or words to that effect, something should come up.

[Winchester]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1346299055' post='2476165']
That doesn't even make sense.

If we're going to follow that logic, I apparently need to have a lot of sex with a lot of women so I can evangelize about why it's wrong. Probably the same is true of being drunk all the time, and swearing. You know, so I can speak from experience.
[/quote]
[img]http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/003/193/1279052383758.jpg[/img]