Are these articles correct or over the top?

[Melkite_Sword]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7855

Quotes a Priest called Father Connell:

America’s leading moralist, Father Connell, insists that

even in this case, where there is no hope of marriage within a reasonable period of time, the company-keeping must be reckoned a venial sin, inasmuch as the couple are frequently a remote occasion of grave sin without a sufficient reason. Furthermore, such steady company-keeping helps to promote a custom that is surely dangerous to the younger generation in general.7
This is the opinion of most moral theologians.

Yet New Advent (and practically every other definition of a Remote occasion of sin I could find) states that:

All theologians are agreed that there is no obligation to avoid the remote occasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of sin.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7855 also says:

But suppose a young couple were to claim that “going-steady” is not a proximate occasion of sin for them — then what?..Even if kids do not seek or consent to such pleasure, moral theology states very clearly that no one may even run the risk of consenting to passion without a proportionate grave reason.

Now this seems to be referring to sexual arousal, so if something makes you sexually aroused even though you don’t seek it or intend it, it would be sinful without a grave reason?? (This would require me not to associate with some of my female friends as I sometimes become unintentionally aroused simply by being with them… I’m sensative ok ) Also running the risk of sexual arousal without a grave reason could mean a number of things, it could mean that I can’t go on my laptop to go on facebook because there is a ‘risk’ of consenting to passion by going on a pornography site (hasn’t happened in years but its still a ‘risk’) and there was no grave reason.

I also ran across this article:

twotlj.org/G-2-4-D.html

What if an act or omission venially sinful in itself is judged to be a remote occasion of mortal sin? The teaching of classical moralists provides no clear answer. But since there never can be any acceptable motive for committing even the slightest venial sin, it seems that any occasion at all sinful in itself becomes grave matter insofar as it involves an absolutely unjustifiable risk of so great an evil as mortal sin. For example, the content of much of the popular media leads to temptations to commit various serious sins: of envy, greed, vanity, lust, and so on. Often, too, there are good reasons, such as the waste of time involved, for not making use of the media, so that doing so is venially sinful in itself. In these circumstances, it is unjustifiable to expose oneself or others (such as one’s children) to content which might lead to a temptation to commit a mortal sin. Considering what is at stake, the matter seems to be grave.

Huh? Is this trying to say that watching tv is usually a venial sin, which may lead to temptation to commit a mortal sin, therefore watching tv is a mortal sin?

I just want some clarification as an eastern catholic on the western concept of occasions of sin and what must be avoided. Most other websites don’t seem to be as hard core as these… are these just fringe ideas trying to make themselves look like they are the majority opinion among moral theologians?

It seems to me that what they are both saying is, Remote occasion of mortal sin is mortal sin … but every other source tells me that we have no obligation to avoid remote occasions!

 

[Hokomai]

(This would require me not to associate with some of my female friends as I sometimes become unintentionally aroused simply by being with them… I’m sensitive ok )

Not so much sensitive as normal. I can say with confidence that this happened to every single one of your male ancestors, going back a couple of billion years to the origin of sexual reproduction. None were life-long celibates. That’s how you came to be here.

 

[Pug]

I also ran across this article:

twotlj.org/G-2-4-D.html

…

It seems to me that what they are both saying is, Remote occasion of mortal sin is mortal sin … but every other source tells me that we have no obligation to avoid remote occasions!

I am a little uncomfortable having Grisez summarized thusly. If watching a particular tv program is already sinful for some reason, and in addition you clearly recognize the show as representing an occasion for mortal sin, then I think he is saying that even if you judge the likelihood that you will succumb to the mortal sin to be remote, he is classifying the free choice to watch that tv show as grave matter.

Classic teaching would teach you to avoid such situations, since it carries the initial condition that the action is already sinful of its own accord.

Before Grisez allows something to qualify as an occasion of sin, he requires that it carry some out of the ordinary amount of temptation. Just walking around normal life carries some basic level of temptation. It has to go beyond that or be some specific problem that individual person has to be called an occasion of sin. I don’t think he is trying to drive someone to the point of craziness worrying about going anywhere or doing anything. Rather, I think he wants us to consider what we are really choosing when we make a moral choice. Generally, he wants there to be a reason for the choice. There is no reason to do a venial sin that carries a risk of mortal sin, since there is no reason that justifies doing a venial sin in the first place. So, I think he sees pointlessly, truly pointlessly, risking mortal sin (our souls) as pretty bad.

He has more to say about the occasion of sin. But this is how I understand the part you quoted. I am somewhat familiar with Grisez, having carefully read him before. I am not familiar with the other authors you cite. In the other cases he discusses, Grisez does not alway conclude that the remote occasion of a mortal sin is mortal. In many cases for him it is not. For example, if there is some obligation to do the action in the first place, or if there is a sufficient reason to choose the good, yet risky, action.

 

[Melkite_Sword]

In the other cases he discusses, Grisez does not alway conclude that the remote occasion of a mortal sin is mortal. In many cases for him it is not. For example, if there is some obligation to do the action in the first place, or if there is a sufficient reason to choose the good, yet risky, action.

hmm… thanks for clarifying all of that. I knew the way I interpreted it couldn’t be right Just a question though on the last statement, according to Grisez what would be a sufficient reason to choose the good yet risky action? what about if your closest friend for a number of years turned out to be remote occasions of mortal sin (I’m not talking about simply individual instances when you’re with them, rather, just being their friend as a whole is a remote occasion, although the temptation is getting easier to deal with as time goes on).

 

[Pug]

hmm… thanks for clarifying all of that. I knew the way I interpreted it couldn’t be right Just a question though on the last statement, according to Grisez what would be a sufficient reason to choose the good yet risky action? what about if your closest friend for a number of years turned out to be remote occasions of mortal sin (I’m not talking about simply individual instances when you’re with them, rather, just being their friend as a whole is a remote occasion, although the temptation is getting easier to deal with as time goes on).

Grisez is no fan of truly terminating a genuine friendship. You mention that the temptation is lessening, which says to me you are learning to deal with it. Keep the friendship at the distance required to continue to learn.

To say more, I’d need to know more, to be sure I’m not making some unwarranted assumption or “leading you down the garden path” so to speak. Things like: what’s your vocation, what’s the temptation about, etc. For example, there is nothing wrong with being a youngish unmarried male who is learning how to have male-female chaste friendships. Be aware he classifies friendships and romantic relationships in a different category. He describes the difference in volume 2, chapter 7, question D, section 3, letter j and k. Here is a snip to get you started with that, if you like:
j) One should avoid confusing friendship with romantic relationship. Like the inclination that leads to friendship, erotic inclination, which leads to romance, is universal. However, while everyone may and should seek and offer friendship, only spouses and single persons with marriage in view should nurture a romantic relationship (see 9.I.1.c–d, 9.I.2.b). Yet even in those who are neither married nor free to marry, inclinations toward friendship and romance often are commingled and easily confused, with the bad results that possible friendships are mistakenly treated as occasions of sin, actual friendships are spoiled by becoming occasions of sin, couples in love fail to cultivate friendship, and romantic relationships are wrongly nurtured as pseudofriendships.

 

[Melkite_Sword]

To say more, I’d need to know more, to be sure I’m not making some unwarranted assumption or “leading you down the garden path” so to speak. Things like: what’s your vocation, what’s the temptation about, etc. For example, there is nothing wrong with being a youngish unmarried male who is learning how to have male-female chaste friendships. Be aware he classifies friendships and romantic relationships in a different category.

Mainly sexual in nature, sometimes bad thoughts pop into my head (that I control). Sometimes it’s arousal if I am around them. I suppose it’s the way they act sometimes they try to be ‘flirty’ as a joke. It gets to a point sometimes where it’s really hard, I have consented a few times in the past to those feelings though, I’m not sure if it would warrant them being a proximate occasion. In my original post I quoted Fr. Connell who seemed to suggest that putting yourself in a position where you know you will be sexually aroused but probably will not consent, without a ‘grave reason’ like marriage is a venial sin. Although sometimes those feelings are so small that they can be barely called a temptation, what would Grisez say about this? Also in light of all this (which is frankly new to me) why does new Advent say the majority of moral theologians agree that there is no obligation to avoid remote occasions of sin, when some obviously do see an obligation of avoiding remote occasions of mortal sin? do some moral theologians see no obligation in avoiding remote occasions of mortal sin? and would you know if the Church has any official stance on all of this?

**j) inclinations toward friendship and romance often are commingled and easily confused, with the bad results that possible friendships are mistakenly treated as occasions of sin, actual friendships are spoiled by becoming occasions of sin.
**

hmm, could you please briefly explain what is meant by the above statement?

Thank you so very much, for all of this. It’s been a great help

 

[Pug]

Mainly sexual in nature, sometimes bad thoughts pop into my head (that I control). Sometimes it’s arousal if I am around them. I suppose it’s the way they act sometimes they try to be ‘flirty’ as a joke. It gets to a point sometimes where it’s really hard, I have consented a few times in the past to those feelings though, I’m not sure if it would warrant them being a proximate occasion. In my original post I quoted Fr. Connell who seemed to suggest that putting yourself in a position where you know you will be sexually aroused but probably will not consent, without a ‘grave reason’ like marriage is a venial sin. Although sometimes those feelings are so small that they can be barely called a temptation, what would Grisez say about this? Also in light of all this (which is frankly new to me) why does new Advent say the majority of moral theologians agree that there is no obligation to avoid remote occasions of sin, when some obviously do see an obligation of avoiding remote occasions of mortal sin? do some moral theologians see no obligation in avoiding remote occasions of mortal sin? and would you know if the Church has any official stance on all of this?

hmm, could you please briefly explain what is meant by the above statement?

Thank you so very much, for all of this. It’s been a great help

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent is 100 years old. So anything newer would not be reflected in the pages. Moral theology has been changing a little in how it is explained sometimes (I gather. I’m not educated enough to say, but perhaps personalism is part of it). Possibly it could make things seem a little different if only part of one way of explaining is compared to only part of another way of explaining, even if overall the functional things that are called right and wrong turn out to be the same when using the whole of each system (of course, what matters is what the Church herself says is right and wrong, and not the system that a theologian uses). My real introduction to moral thinking was Grisez, an author who wrote in the second half of the 1900’s, well after the encyclopedia on New Advent. So I am likely to use terms as he uses them. If you read the whole of his three volume work, he tends to explain every so often where he differs and how from St. Thomas Aquinas, etc., like in his explanation of the basis to tell mortal and venial matter apart. This is my long-winded way of trying to answer why you see a difference in how topics are treated.

I know of no official stance on the remote occasion of sin. So, I would recommend picking an orthodox theologian and following him/her for that particular topic. I would also recommend asking your priest and following his advice. Note that Grisez will probably seem strict on this topic.

You need to analyze if one or the other or both of you has as their guiding interest in the relationship a romantic interest (as opposed to those random, often strong, unwanted thoughts that pop into people’s heads now and then, that don’t fit the relationship). It sounds like Fr. Connell is concerned about this type of relationship. If you think this may be what is going on, and you are not on the direct market right now, you need to not be spending a lot of time together right now (Connell and Grisez agree), until either it resolves better to be just a friendship or you go on the market (as it probably does represent an “occasion of sin” or may trend that way soon).

But, if you two really are interested in doing fun things together and chatting and that is the primary thing right now (you’re not interested in lots of touching and spending endless time together exclusively), then those occasional unwanted feelings are things you will learn with time to deal with. Don’t throw away all chance at chaste friendship. It can be helpful to pick activities in groups, during the day, not meet so often, etc. I don’t know what Fr. Connell would say, but Grisez is all for chaste friendships. But don’t kid yourself about what you are really interested in, romance or friendship.

Unfortunately, some people, male and female, are not aware of how they affect the other sex by what they might consider a harmless flirt, even if executed in a crowd of people. I’ve got no good remedy for that. I doubt Fr. Connell was thinking about this in the quote. He probably meant dating and the like, but I don’t have enough context to say for sure.

I’m out of time for the day, so hopefully I hit the points you wanted.