Does a "sex-saturated society" mitigate responsibility for sexual sin?

[ToeInTheWater]

I have recently noticed a trend (mostly in the Family Life section) where people seem to blame, not themselves, but a “sex-saturated society” for sexual sins. All the way from looking at someone dressed a certain way and lusting, or a certain billboard and lusting, to actual sexual intercourse with someone you’re not married to, because peer pressure and social expectations to commit various sexual acts are so intense.

“It’s impossible to be chaste in this day and age”, many people state. It seems that the best many people expect of our young people, including religious ones, is to “experiment” sexually to some degree, eventually repent of it, and “settle down” in a hopefully valid, lasting marriage.

It seems that men tend to use this excuse to excuse lusting after women by looking at them, but not actual sex. I have seen statements from male posters here that they just cannot help lusting after a woman if she is dressed a certain way – and that, therefore, those “scandalous women” are to blame for somehow forcing them to lust.

While women often claim to have given into sexual sin in terms of actual intercourse, not because they actually had an issue with lust themselves, but due to pressure from boyfriends, or just, again, the “sex-saturated society”. Many women seem to believe that while it’s not impossible to abstain in terms of their hormones, that if they actually want a chance at romance and marriage in this “sex-saturated society”, that they have to compromise their values to some extent. Hence the many “technical virgins” who say no to full vaginal intercourse, but yes to everything else, including anal sex. I’ve read that especially in certain Latino cultures, anal sex doesn’t count as “real sex”. And we all know what the post-Clinton Adminstration take on oral sex is, many people even recommend that as a safer alternative to intercourse. Same with masturbation.

Would people agree with this? I know many factors can mitigate masturbation from a mortal sin to a venial one. Can similar factors mitigate other forms of sexual sin? Or is fornication always a mortal sin, even if someone feels they have no choice except to engage in it? (I’m not talking about physical rape, but strong social pressures.) How about prostitution? Can that sin be mitigated for, say, a teenage runaway who was desperate and had no other means to survive? Or someone who is outright kidnapped into sexual slavery? I’d think that would mitigate the sin, but then on the other hand someone could say that even such women could always choose to refuse, (even if the consequence is death, after all St. Maria Goretti did so), or that if they’re not actively trying to escape the situation, then they are just as guilty of sexual sin as someone who commits it with no coercion whatsoever.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Take CCC#2235, for example. It is about prostitution. At the end, it reads: “While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.”

I think ultimately, your question is related to the factors that constitute a mortal sin.

*CCC#1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”*It sounds like in your description, these Catholics that are attributing some sins to society are essentially admitting to grave matter and full knowledge - but they are saying that the pressure of society can influence the deliberateness of the consent. That can be true, but the Catechism also warns:*Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.*So if one is feigning that their heart is hardened buy using the pressure of society as an excuse is rather increasing the weight of their sin – which is horrific! It is also quite sinful to approve of someone engaging in such sins by encouraging them to attribute their sin entirely to society.

In short, if we are aware that something is a sin, but still do it - it is still a sin, because we still have the choice to reject the sin even if that means losing a boyfriend or girlfriend, or fighting terrible temptations after passing a suggestively clad person. Our freedom is not totally eclipsed by outside influences like that.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Claiming peer pressure is a cop out. I don’t need friends so bad that I have to sell my soul.

 

[Luvtosew]

Claiming peer pressure is a cop out. I don’t need friends so bad that I have to sell my soul.

Good for you Buck.

 

[John21652]

It’s a bit like walking into a pub and blaming the presence of the beer for your drunkeness.

 

[Mortification]

I would say the billboards, overall public saturation of sex, being surrounded by many seductively beautiful and aggressive/flirtatious women all day, everyday, at work definitely makes things harder to do the right thing, especially for someone who struggles with sexuals sins on their own as it is. I can’t say that they are the only ones who are to blame, although they do bear some responsibility for it too. Everyone is still responsible for their actions at some point, but the society we live in now definitely makes things harder for a Catholic to do the right thing, especially when you’re young.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Claiming peer pressure is a cop out. I don’t need friends so bad that I have to sell my soul. **

Hi. You make a valid point, of course.

But you must remember, most people today may know that “God’s Law” or “the Church” or “The Bible” FORBID any sexual activity outside marriage whatsoever, so they know that they are breaking a law when they do it,
at the same time,
most of them have little or no conception of Christian truth to help fortify their souls
against breaking such laws. This is partly their fault (they don’t bother to ask whether God expects anything of them) and , sometimes, partly Christians’s fault too.
Sermons, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, are often syrupy and bland and rarely touch hot-button issues such as repentance and the need to avoid mortal sins.
Another thing is that we popularly think of sins as “merely” sins, even mortal ones.
So having sex outside marriage is a “sin,” even a “mortal sin,” but in the popular mind,
not AS bad as, say, defrauding Medicaid of $5000, which is a “crime” which is terrible.
That’s due largely to the separation of church and state in the West.
So the “crime” is viewed as worse than even the “mortal” sin.
When the truth is that God’s Law calls for the “crime” (theft and fraud, in the case above)
to be punished with RE-PAYMENT of what was stolen, several times over if one has the means to do so, but that’s it. It is the STATE which imposes penalties that are far harsher than even penalties called for by God Himself in the Law He gave directly to Moses. So people think of the Doctor who falsely bills Medicaid for 5 Grand as a horrible man, while they themselves are merely “sinners.” But their sin may be unrepented Adultery which they are still committing. Is the dishonest Doctor’s action really worse, in GOD’s Eyes? Not according to scripture, NOT at ALL.
Actually, God Himself, calls for the Adulterer
to be JUDICIALLY put to death, both the man and the woman.
In many countries, the State used to, in fact, severely punish people who were
convicted of Adultery. In many states in the USA, Laws against Adultery are STILL on the Books. It is rarely, if ever, ever prosecuted any more, but in many places,
it is STILL ILLEGAL. And according to God’s Law, the state is supposed to
EXECUTE you for it.
But we live in the Age of Grace, which is why the Church currently has rethought it’s traditional open support of the Death Penalty and has now, in the catechism, greatly restricted it’s support for that penalty.
People only tend to think of that as being “REALLY BAD”
those things that the State punishes. But’s that is an utterly false view.
The STATE, for example, will prosecute you for blocking the entrance
to an Abortion Mill. That is a serious offence. But guess what?
It’s not a Sin. The SIN is what is going on INSIDE that Abortion Mill.

So, part of the reason that people think that “Sins” are not so bad, is that
the emphasis is placed on the “evils” of the Bernie Madoffs, the crooked Doctors
who bilk Medicaid by billing them for services they never performed, etc., because
THESE things can get you arrested, locked up, or fined with exhorbitant fines that you could never, ever pay off. Whereas “Sins” can always be “forgiven,” and thus are less serious than those “really bad” things that can get them into trouble.

The point is, of course, that ALL acts of sin, especially mortal sins,
are in fact CRIMES. They are crimes against the Laws of GOD, which are even more important than the Laws of the Land. The State may not punish them for them,
but God most certainly will.

So, yes, peer pressure as an excuse to continue in Sin IS A COP OUT.
But, peer-pressure, coupled with lack of faith AND a poor religious and moral formation,
are definitely MITIGATING factors. MITIGATING, though, NOT “excuplatory.”
They are still knowingly sinning without repentance. But these are, definitely,
extenuating factors. They do not absolve, but they do mitigate somewhat.
After all, “FROM HE to whom much has been given, MUCH will be required.”
So…those who have been given LESS are LESS blameworthy.
But they are still blameworthy, just not as much.
King David is an example of one who was given MUCH.
He knew the Lord PERSONALLY, and NOT just through Sacraments.
He had prophets who spoke directly TO the Lord. He studied God’s Law in DETAIL.
The LORD had given him great wealth. Anointed him to a position of VERY GREAT POWER in Israel. With God’s help, he, David, had defeated Giants and even defeated Armies when it would have been IMPOSSIBLE, humanly and naturally-speaking, for him to have done so under the horrible circumstances. Yet, despite this deep personal relationship with God, David took his TRUSTED FRIEND’s WIFE, Bath-Sheba, got her pregnant, then maliciously set up her husband, HIS FRIEND, Uriah, deliberately to have the innocent man killed. David was the King. He could have exempted himself from the Death Penalty for adultery. Many Kings exempted themselves from the Law. They broke it right and left while ruling in Jerusalem. David didn’t “have to” kill Uriah in order to cover up his adultery. He could have waited for Uriah to go back out into battle, and have Bath-Sheba sent to Egypt to have her baby and leave it there and return. As King, he could have done that, and not killed his friend, and no one could have lawfully questioned him for doing it. Instead, he chose to kill his friend. And for a whole year, was utterly unrepentant. And would have REMAINED so had not Nathan the Prophet confronted him tactfully but boldly with the fact that the LORD was ANGRY at him for having done these things.

 

[Dorothy]

It is also good to remember that with God all things are possible, and with His grace through much prayer and the Sacraments it is possible to live in the world and not be of the world.

Acquiring friends who are of the same mind of wanting to avoid sin, and who put the Lord first in their lives is a big help. If one has to be in a work environment where many temptations are present, they can behave in a way that shows they are not interested in being in social groups where there is immodest and suggestive conversation.

Difficult? yes…Impossible? no. With God all things are possible.

We can grow spiritually when challenged with temptations.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**If one has to be in a work environment where many temptations are present, they can behave in a way that shows they are not interested in being in social groups where there is immodest and suggestive conversation.

Difficult? yes…Impossible? no. With God all things are possible.

We can grow spiritually when challenged with temptation**.

There is much to agree with in your above statement.
However, I’d have to advise anyone who is weak, not well-formed in the faith,
or NEW to the faith, or recovering from having lived in serious sins for some time,
or a “spiritual babe” or whatever, to try to find another job, OR
talk with the Boss privately and let her or him know that obscene and lewd talk and/or behavior is going on regularly in the office. These things, especially lewd talk, are always against Company Policy (due to their being afraid of being accused of Sexual Harassment, etc).
Only a spiritually-mature person is equipped (and even then with FEAR AND TREMBLING) to deal with a sexually-charged, immoral work environment.
A newbie or one with a history of sexual sins, etc., should NOT remain in this environment because, for him or her, it is an 8 hour a day, everyday, NEAR OCCASION OF SIN, something which he promised to try to avoid when he made his Act of Contrition in confession.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
PRAY THE ROSARY DAILY

 

[Dorothy]

**If one has to be in a work environment where many temptations are present, they can behave in a way that shows they are not interested in being in social groups where there is immodest and suggestive conversation.

Difficult? yes…Impossible? no. With God all things are possible.

We can grow spiritually when challenged with temptation**.

There is much to agree with in your above statement.
However, I’d have to advise anyone who is weak, not well-formed in the faith,
or NEW to the faith, or recovering from having lived in serious sins for some time,
or a “spiritual babe” or whatever, to try to find another job, OR
talk with the Boss privately and let her or him know that obscene and lewd talk and/or behavior is going on regularly in the office. These things, especially lewd talk, are always against Company Policy (due to their being afraid of being accused of Sexual Harassment, etc).
Only a spiritually-mature person is equipped (and even then with FEAR AND TREMBLING) to deal with a sexually-charged, immoral work environment.
A newbie or one with a history of sexual sins, etc., should NOT remain in this environment because, for him or her, it is an 8 hour a day, everyday, NEAR OCCASION OF SIN, something which he promised to try to avoid when he made his Act of Contrition in confession.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
PRAY THE ROSARY DAILY

Excellent point! They would need to avoid the near occasion of sin.

 

[edwest2]

I have recently noticed a trend (mostly in the Family Life section) where people seem to blame, not themselves, but a “sex-saturated society” for sexual sins. All the way from looking at someone dressed a certain way and lusting, or a certain billboard and lusting, to actual sexual intercourse with someone you’re not married to, because peer pressure and social expectations to commit various sexual acts are so intense.

“It’s impossible to be chaste in this day and age”, many people state. It seems that the best many people expect of our young people, including religious ones, is to “experiment” sexually to some degree, eventually repent of it, and “settle down” in a hopefully valid, lasting marriage.

It seems that men tend to use this excuse to excuse lusting after women by looking at them, but not actual sex. I have seen statements from male posters here that they just cannot help lusting after a woman if she is dressed a certain way – and that, therefore, those “scandalous women” are to blame for somehow forcing them to lust.

While women often claim to have given into sexual sin in terms of actual intercourse, not because they actually had an issue with lust themselves, but due to pressure from boyfriends, or just, again, the “sex-saturated society”. Many women seem to believe that while it’s not impossible to abstain in terms of their hormones, that if they actually want a chance at romance and marriage in this “sex-saturated society”, that they have to compromise their values to some extent. Hence the many “technical virgins” who say no to full vaginal intercourse, but yes to everything else, including anal sex. I’ve read that especially in certain Latino cultures, anal sex doesn’t count as “real sex”. And we all know what the post-Clinton Adminstration take on oral sex is, many people even recommend that as a safer alternative to intercourse. Same with masturbation.

Would people agree with this? I know many factors can mitigate masturbation from a mortal sin to a venial one. Can similar factors mitigate other forms of sexual sin? Or is fornication always a mortal sin, even if someone feels they have no choice except to engage in it? (I’m not talking about physical rape, but strong social pressures.) How about prostitution? Can that sin be mitigated for, say, a teenage runaway who was desperate and had no other means to survive? Or someone who is outright kidnapped into sexual slavery? I’d think that would mitigate the sin, but then on the other hand someone could say that even such women could always choose to refuse, (even if the consequence is death, after all St. Maria Goretti did so), or that if they’re not actively trying to escape the situation, then they are just as guilty of sexual sin as someone who commits it with no coercion whatsoever.

As someone who posted on another forum wrote: “Do you remember when porn was considered dirty and hard to get?”

The sudden appearance of Adult Bookstores across the country in the 1970s offering graphic images of prostitutes was an open scandal. What was private was now public. In the 1950s and 1960s, the word sex could not be said on TV, much less showing a married couple in the same bed. That is why comedian George Carlin added “those words you can’t say on TV” to his act. Over 40 years, the media, movies, television and even the radio, gradually turned up the volume on sexual content.

In the 1990s, the internet made global access to porn available – something never before seen in human history. From Madonna wearing some underwear on the outsider of her clothes to Lady Ga Ga posing on the cover of Rolling Stone with two AK-47s covering her breasts, and a string.

Just a few years prior to 1970, Playboy was the most common publication with women with nothing or almost nothing on. What occurred a few years later shocked everyone with a shred of modesty and decency. Strip clubs and topless bars?

It is a very valid fact that scarcely a magazine or TV show today has no references to sex. And those magazine covers at the supermarket. Apparently, some of these young women want to be viewed not as whole human beings but as objects.

Yes, we are responsible for our thoughts and actions. However, in the 1960s, the idea of a little kid cussing out mom in a parking lot would have led to a near-death experience.

The Church, in its mercy, does allow for the consideration of mitigating circumstances in some situations. But, for the most part, we should avoid most of the media out there and be very discerning of what is left if it has some virtue.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Hi Ed, I enjoyed your post just above. Very true and valid.

One thing, though, it actually began to accelerate exponentially,
around 1964 or 1965. There was a Supreme Court decision in either 64 or '65,
which ruled that the showing of full, complete, total FRONTAL nudity
was Not Obscene. This decision basically overruled and struck-down ALL
obscenity Laws in effect in every State and Locality all across the United States.
What is shocking is that these Supreme Court justices, some of them,
were Catholics (such as Justice Brennan, whom we can also largely thank
for Roe vs. Wade, which struck down all anti-Abortion Laws and basically legalized
all abortion on demand).

Anyway, IMMEDIATELY the “burlesque” clubs became complete nudity clubs,
the films rated M for mature audiences suddenly became much more graphic, and
“porno” theaters began to open in the mid 1960s. This was IMMEDIATELY followed upon by the “Sexual Revolution” of the late 1960s, which has continued to this day. And of course, with people throwing off sexual restraints in the 1960s, the gay and lesbian community began to publicly assert it’s right to promote the gay lifestyle and behaviors, and thus the Gay Rights movement took off like a rocket beginning in 1969 with the Stonewall Riots in New York’s Greenwich Village in 1969. By the early 1970s, porno theatres and adult bookstores were ALL over the place, ALL over America, in nearly every city, town and hamlet. During this time, the Major Media (such as CBS, etc) began to promote homosexuality, carefully and gently introducing it to wide American audiences by presenting nice, normal-acting practicing gays and lesbians in “documentaries” and interviews. As this took place, community-after-community began enacting “Gay Rights” ordinances. Also during (and even before) this time, the Mainline Church denominations of protestantism began to promote softer views on fornication, abortion, multiple divorces and remarriages, homosexual sex acts and relationships, etc., taking two steps forward then one step back each time, so as not to lose all their churchmembers all at once.
Today the whole thing is way past being completely out of control.
In the 1970s, to look at porn, you had to drive (and risk your car being seen parked outside of these places) to porno theatres and porno bookstores.
Today, all you have to do is google a dirty word, and a million links to pornographic websites and images will come up, all in the privacy of your home.
The temptation to look at it is very overwhelming. Not only can you get it with the click of a mouse, but you literally have it, and views condoning and approving all this, thrown into your face every time you turn on your tv, turn on your radio, open your newspaper or newsmagazine, etc. etc. etc. This really is a sex and perversity saturated society.
Saturated is not at all an exaggeration.
And it’s getting worse and worse every day. And now these things are openly embraced.
In the 1970s, even on tv sitcoms, the characters would never admit to looking at porn.
It was considered nasty and seedy, even then, even during the height of the Sexual Revolution. But in the 90s and beyond, on sitcoms such as FRIENDS, the characters freely acknowledged regular porn use, keeping it in their homes, watching it on video, etc. Also on that show, the characters Ross and Rachel filmed each other having sex, then watched the video together and critiqued each other’s “performance.”
On THE GOLDEN GIRLS, the three elderly ladies go to the drugstore and buy condoms to take on their Cruise they are about to go on, and go on the loudspeaker of the drugstore to defend their actions as responsibly practicing safe sex.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**It’s a bit like walking into a pub and blaming the presence of the beer for your drunkeness. **

Dear John21652,
yes, but there are big differences too.
Theoretically, the Beer is AT the Pub, and you have to GO THERE to get it,
sit down, ORDER it, pay for it, and then drink it, lots of it.
The Pub owner doesn’t come into your house, personally or by way of the media,
and harangue you and harangue you and harangue you into COMING DOWN TO THE PUB.

In our Society, you can’t go anywhere or do practically ANYTHING, even watch the news, without being assaulted by pro-sexual-immorality views and propaganda. If you turn on your radio to hear some music, most of it is dirty, suggestive, immoral. Most of your celebrities whose music and films you admire, spend their free time advocating immorality and perversity. You walk down the street and the couple in front of you and deep-tongue kissing in public and both dressed in tight clothes, etc. You go to a nice shopping promenade on Miami Beach, and the pornographic images are in the storefront windows of gay and lesbian bookstores, at children’s eye-level.
“Christian” Churches sponsor marches promoting the homosexual lifestyle (sexually active is what I am referring to, not the mere orientation), which are covered by the newsmedia. Newscasters on tv criticize the teaching of traditional sexual values in the home, as being somehow responsible for the “bullying” of “gay” teenagers at school .
Does it stop there? Heck no, and I could go on and on about how this stuff is literally thrown into your face and mind-imagery, practically every time you turn around or take a step. One more example will suffice. Used to be, you could change the channel, or not go to the porn shop, and go about your business: work, then homelife, prayer, church, etc. Not anymore. Now, in most companies, to get or KEEP your job, you have to go through MANDATORY diversity training and have your conscience defiled by this propaganda. ALL Diversity Training teaches acceptance, APPROVING acceptance, of those practicing the homosexual lifestyle, and of the lifestyle ITSELF.
You cannot even have a JOB anymore without being forced to keep your Christian moral views to yourself, which very silence WEAKENS those views within you. Not only that, but those practicing immorality can talk about it on the job, advocate for it on company time, etc., and have no problems, but YOU, dear Catholic Christian, had better NOT warn them that what they are advocating is a crime against God which they need to repent of. THAT will get you fired, and maybe arrested, for (yes, I am serious) the Federal crime of using Hate Speech against a federally-protected group. These “hate speech” laws are very elastic. If one of these people is “hurt” or “offended” by what you say, they can file suit against you and even, sometimes, have you arrested. In any event, you will be branded a hate-monger and fired from your job. And again, most large companies have these policies, so you can’t even get away from the advocacy of sexual immorality even at work, where you are supposed to be WORKING for a PAYCHECK, and NOT being indoctrinated by your EMPLOYER into approving of, or remaining silent about , deadly Sins.
So, it is everywhere, and you really can’t get away from it any more. Not for very
long at a pop, anyway.

 

[chrisb]

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Isn’t this why we have Confession? Wouldn’t this be the responsibility for the Father Confessor to determine? I don’t think a sin so closely linked to the person can be determine by a blanket ruling.

 

[willofgods]

Part of it might be that many are not able to differentiate between lusting and being tempted. I’m still working on that one myself and it can fall into the category of scrupulosity; however, the transition from temptation to lusting is up to them.

The trouble with society today is that they “train” you to open the throttle to maximum acceleration from temptation to lust.
Guys & gals just need to learn to anticipate when there will be an occasion for temptation and avoid it. And if they’ve fallen into temptation, run away from it; turn your head; close your eyes; pray to the Holy Spirit to take away any images in your mind that are going to have you lust, before it becomes sin.

 

[iloveangels]

I have recently noticed a trend (mostly in the Family Life section) where people seem to blame, not themselves, but a “sex-saturated society” for sexual sins. All the way from looking at someone dressed a certain way and lusting, or a certain billboard and lusting, to actual sexual intercourse with someone you’re not married to, because peer pressure and social expectations to commit various sexual acts are so intense.

“It’s impossible to be chaste in this day and age”, many people state. It seems that the best many people expect of our young people, including religious ones, is to “experiment” sexually to some degree, eventually repent of it, and “settle down” in a hopefully valid, lasting marriage.

It seems that men tend to use this excuse to excuse lusting after women by looking at them, but not actual sex. I have seen statements from male posters here that they just cannot help lusting after a woman if she is dressed a certain way – and that, therefore, those “scandalous women” are to blame for somehow forcing them to lust.

While women often claim to have given into sexual sin in terms of actual intercourse, not because they actually had an issue with lust themselves, but due to pressure from boyfriends, or just, again, the “sex-saturated society”. Many women seem to believe that while it’s not impossible to abstain in terms of their hormones, that if they actually want a chance at romance and marriage in this “sex-saturated society”, that they have to compromise their values to some extent. Hence the many “technical virgins” who say no to full vaginal intercourse, but yes to everything else, including anal sex. I’ve read that especially in certain Latino cultures, anal sex doesn’t count as “real sex”. And we all know what the post-Clinton Adminstration take on oral sex is, many people even recommend that as a safer alternative to intercourse. Same with masturbation.

Would people agree with this? I know many factors can mitigate masturbation from a mortal sin to a venial one. Can similar factors mitigate other forms of sexual sin? Or is fornication always a mortal sin, even if someone feels they have no choice except to engage in it? (I’m not talking about physical rape, but strong social pressures.) How about prostitution? Can that sin be mitigated for, say, a teenage runaway who was desperate and had no other means to survive? Or someone who is outright kidnapped into sexual slavery? I’d think that would mitigate the sin, but then on the other hand someone could say that even such women could always choose to refuse, (even if the consequence is death, after all St. Maria Goretti did so), or that if they’re not actively trying to escape the situation, then they are just as guilty of sexual sin as someone who commits it with no coercion whatsoever.

No. But it should put you on your guard.

 

[passer_by]

It’s a bit like walking into a pub and blaming the presence of the beer for your drunkeness.

Haha I think the correct analogy though is “What if the whole world is a Pub, are you still responsible for your drunkenness since you can’t avoid its presence?”

To answer the OP, I think the answer is “No” for most cases. There is a lot of time to think, stop one-self, and avoid actually fornicating. Things like falling in to impure thoughts, well might be harder because its spontaneous and after they occur, its quiet a battle to get out. But to actually say social situation made someone have sex with some other person I think is stretching it and totally invalid… unless the person’s whole world is a Brothel from which he cannot leave or something… the world isn’t that bad yet right

 

[Newbie2]

It’s a bit like walking into a pub and blaming the presence of the beer for your drunkeness.

**It’s a bit like walking into a pub and blaming the presence of the beer for your drunkeness. **

Dear John21652,
yes, but there are big differences too.
Theoretically, the Beer is AT the Pub, and you have to GO THERE to get it,
sit down, ORDER it, pay for it, and then drink it, lots of it.
The Pub owner doesn’t come into your house, personally or by way of the media,
and harangue you and harangue you and harangue you into COMING DOWN TO THE PUB.

In our Society, you can’t go anywhere or do practically ANYTHING, even watch the news, without being assaulted by pro-sexual-immorality views and propaganda. If you turn on your radio to hear some music, most of it is dirty, suggestive, immoral. Most of your celebrities whose music and films you admire, spend their free time advocating immorality and perversity. You walk down the street and the couple in front of you and deep-tongue kissing in public and both dressed in tight clothes, etc. You go to a nice shopping promenade on Miami Beach, and the pornographic images are in the storefront windows of gay and lesbian bookstores, at children’s eye-level.

Dittos. Yeah, I think that Pub analogy falls short in this circumstance.

It is SOOOOOOOOOO difficult as a parent to screen out things from your kids nowadays, let alone ones self. It’s EVERYWHERE, at least in American society. That’s not a cop-out, it’s a reality with which we need to manage. We need to learn to operate within this society as a definitely counter-cultural minority without giving in to its temptations.

As someone who posted on another forum wrote: “Do you remember when porn was considered dirty and hard to get?”

The sudden appearance of Adult Bookstores across the country in the 1970s offering graphic images of prostitutes was an open scandal. What was private was now public. In the 1950s and 1960s, the word sex could not be said on TV, much less showing a married couple in the same bed. That is why comedian George Carlin added “those words you can’t say on TV” to his act. Over 40 years, the media, movies, television and even the radio, gradually turned up the volume on sexual content.

In the 1990s, the internet made global access to porn available – something never before seen in human history. From Madonna wearing some underwear on the outsider of her clothes to Lady Ga Ga posing on the cover of Rolling Stone with two AK-47s covering her breasts, and a string.

Just a few years prior to 1970, Playboy was the most common publication with women with nothing or almost nothing on. What occurred a few years later shocked everyone with a shred of modesty and decency. Strip clubs and topless bars?

It is a very valid fact that scarcely a magazine or TV show today has no references to sex. And those magazine covers at the supermarket. Apparently, some of these young women want to be viewed not as whole human beings but as objects.

Yes, we are responsible for our thoughts and actions. However, in the 1960s, the idea of a little kid cussing out mom in a parking lot would have led to a near-death experience.

The Church, in its mercy, does allow for the consideration of mitigating circumstances in some situations. But, for the most part, we should avoid most of the media out there and be very discerning of what is left if it has some virtue.

Peace,
Ed

Great post, Ed. I couldn’t agree more. I used to turn around offensive magazine covers at the stores and spoke with the managers about being offended by them. Occasionally I’d get some positive response, but a couple months later, it was like nothing had changed. I suspect that they were under some pressure by the regional managers not to do such things in response to customer requests. I wrote letters to the editor a couple times, and got a couple of supporting phone calls from local parents.

I’ve since given up. It’s too big a fight for me, and I’ve concentrated on fighting smaller, different battles. Kudos for individuals and organizations like the American Decency Association who fight the good fight, although sometimes they get distracted with less important battles.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your response. It’s the little things - anything - that matter as well. I constantly hear on TV about “public opinion” about this or that. If we don’t speak up then those who conduct such polls can honestly say: “No one complained.”

The past 40 years also saw a campaign to shut us up.

In the 1970s, if a Christian complained about cohabitating? “Leave us alone. We’re responsible adults. We’ll do what we want!”

The 2011 Christmas edition of the Sunday Detroit News - Free Press had a front front page heading above the fold, denouncing Governor Snyder for listening to “small minded bigots” about benefits for cohabitating couples.

In the 1970s, if a Christian complained about Adult Bookstores, you were a “religious nut,” and you were told that the producers of porn and the bookstore owners had the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Pictures of prostitutes was “expression”? They also had lawyers to go after groups who were sincerely trying to tell their local governments that such bookstores did not belong in their neighborhoods - that they were an affront to common decency.

In 2011, on another forum, an individual commented that porn had gone “mainstream,” that it was part of our everyday culture now.

Can you imagine being President of the United States and as part of a cultural exchange program, sending a box of porn magazines to a small country in Africa?

How about the 1980s and 1990s? The ACLU woke up one day and realized there were Nativities in front of public buildings across the country. Now, it didn’t matter that no one was required to look at it or pray to it or leave money in it – it was offensive and had to go. So, what was the solution? Local City Halls leased a parcel of land nearby to a private group so they could still display what the ACLU called a “creche.” Or, they could include plastic reindeer, a plastic Santa and plastic candy canes along with the creche – Jesus became a Christmas decoration and nothing more. A local town issued an ordinance for secular store owners who had speakers playing Christmas music on the outside of their store: It was OK to play the music but not the words.

thecatholicassociation.org/mean-spirited_minority_wrong_to_claim_christmas_offends_non-christians_bill_donohue_says.html

Or how about this?

“On Monday January 4, 2011, a three judge panel of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed its opinion in the “Mount Soledad Cross Case”, Trunk v. City of San Diego. They held that the Mount Soledad cross which had stood since 1913 had somehow now become a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Apparently, a cross that had stood in one place since 1913 had now become a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Source: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=42127

So pray, and politely object to offences regarding public decency, the dignity of women and the free expression of religion, including in the public square. For years, we were told, leave them alone, it’s private, it’s none of our business. Today, some of these same people are putting what they do in private right in front of us. Leaving them alone was step one in allowing immoral lifestyles to become mainstream, or common.

There is such a thing as modesty, human dignity and our right right to express our religious beliefs publicly and openly. The wrong approach is Indifference, something Pope Benedict spoke about recently. How are we to be the salt of the earth if we lose our savor? If we hide our faith under a bushel? Or limit our faith to one hour in the Church building on Sunday?

We need to express clear Church teaching to all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jwinch2]

I am not sure if mitigating responsibility for sin is how I would look at it. However to be fair, a properly formed conscience is important for the determination of right and wrong. If you grow up in a place where morals are skewed and there is nothing around you to ground your compass, developing an informed conscience can be very difficult. Not impossible mind you, but very hard.