“Open to life” = “procreative” in moral theology.
Openness to life means openness to family. Procreation has nothing to do with prostitution. The whole act has been completely degraded already. Procreation, or the creation of new life, has already been removed from the act. It may remain biologically and materially, but it is completely gone from the context of the act.
What planet are you on anyway? Cite your sources and perhaps I will begin to believe you are rational in this argument. Well, you refuse to state your religion, so we cannot assume you are Catholic and therefore your arguments have zero merit in this forum about Catholic morality anyway.
My arguments are quite rational and they deal quite well with the context of catholic theology. Do you honestly take offense at my posts? Everything the Church has ever said about sex places it in the context of marriage and family. No one can even question it.
Untrue. The Church has spoken volumes on the varieties of sex outside of marriage. Homosexuality and masturbation, to make two examples. How can you possibly discuss masturbation in the context of “marriage and family”? Marriage makes no difference to this sin of masturbation. A married man who masturbates has committed the same sin, and it is for this reason: his sex act is neither unitive nor procreative. For the sake of argument, if you want to imagine a wife masturbating her husband, you might say this is unitive, but you cannot call it procreative, and it is exactly the same sin as using a condom: it has destroyed that aspect of the sex.
Contraception is INTRINSICALLY EVIL. It is NEVER acceptable. Your advice to use a condom with a prostitute is tantamount to counseling others to sin. As a Catholic with a degree in theology, you should know better. Shame on you!
Your quote says nothing different than what I have already said. It affirms what I have said about sex and its context in marriage. The difference between the use of contraception in the example in your quote from the CCC and the subject of the thread is that the CCC example starts with sex between a husband and wife, and consequently the proper context and then adds contraception. In other words it takes a licit act and makes it illicit. The subject of this thread starts with sex with a prostitute and then adds condom use to it. It starts with an illicit act. The act remains the same.
Quite prescient, isn’t it? The latter paragraph predicts the HHS mandate accurately. The former explains why the use of contraception with prostitutes only perpetuates the evil of that industry. When the women are freed of the consequences of pregnancy and STIs from promiscuous sex, the men feel justified in expanding and extending the scourges of pimping, pandering, prostitution, sexual slavery, human trafficking, physical abuse, abortion, and all the other offenses which go hand-in-hand. This is the context of prostitution, not one of marriage and family, but one of male aggression and domination, using women as objects, seeing them as inferior, and throwing them away when we are done.
I have no sympathy for your idea of ‘male aggression’. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don’t blame a man because a woman sells her body. I am sick and tired of this obsession with blaming everything on men. If that is truely your approach, then you really are inferior because you aren’t responsible for your actions like a man is.
The conjugal act has an interior truth whether it is inside marriage or not. What better way to disrespect and destroy love for a woman who is already driven to sex for money than contracepting too? Many pimps probably force them to take birth control pills. Certainly they are coerced into abortions when (not if) these methods fail. This is the context of prostitution. Moral depravity in the service of unfettered capitalism. Condoms are insult to injury. What would the Holy Father say? What would Blessed John Paul the Great say?
I imagine that if one puts it on but does not use it, without any sinful preparation for it, it is not a violation. (Buying it or trying it could be scandal.)
Why would one use a condom if not having sex.
Sex with a prostitute is a sin as is sex with anyone outside of marriage.
What on earth were you thinking?
If you paid your wife $50 for each sex act, there is nothing wrong with that?
Right.
Notice the particular sin here is the violation of the chastity to which baptism calls all of us. Yet, is this distinct from the sin of the sexual activity itself? Again, from the Catechism:
This is in the section entitled “offenses against charity.” It is sinful in a different way that prostitution is sinful: namely, that it is contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality.
This is in the section entitled “offenses against marriage.” Adultery is sinful, again, in a way that’s different than prostitution: it’s an offense against one’s marital commitment as well as against his spouse.
No; as the catechism demonstrates, the ‘prostitute part’ isn’t just a sin of the prostitute, but of the client, as well!
It’s not a question of ‘more’ or ‘less’; it’s a question of number of grave sins committed. Looking at grave sins and asking “is this more or less important?” is an erroneous approach to understanding mortal sin…
