Intrinsic evil in Sacred Scripture

[Ron_Conte]

Sacred Scripture teaches that certain types of acts are always immoral; these acts are immoral because of the nature of the act itself, without regard for intention or circumstances.

“Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

The universal Magisterium teaches that we may never choose certain types of acts prohibited by negative precepts. And Jesus himself taught the same: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).

There are no exceptions for good intentions or dire circumstances.

Certain types of sexual acts are also intrinsically and seriously disordered, and therefore always immoral regardless of intention or circumstances. Intrinsically evil sexual acts include:

lust (Mt 5:28)
masturbation (Mt 5:30; Sirach 23:25)
adultery (Deut 5:18)
non-marital sexual acts (Deut 22:20-21)
non-procreative or non-unitive sexual acts (Gen 38:10; 19:7; Lev 18:22; Romans 1:26-27)
incest (Lev 18:6 ff)
rape (Deut 22:25:27)

 

[thomas_jd]

Sacred Scripture teaches that certain types of acts are always immoral; these acts are immoral because of the nature of the act itself, without regard for intention or circumstances.

“Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

The universal Magisterium teaches that we may never choose certain types of acts prohibited by negative precepts. And Jesus himself taught the same: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).

There are no exceptions for good intentions or dire circumstances.

Certain types of sexual acts are also intrinsically and seriously disordered, and therefore always immoral regardless of intention or circumstances. Intrinsically evil sexual acts include:

lust (Mt 5:28)
masturbation (Mt 5:30; Sirach 23:25)
adultery (Deut 5:18)
non-marital sexual acts (Deut 22:20-21)
non-procreative or non-unitive sexual acts (Gen 38:10; 19:7; Lev 18:22; Romans 1:26-27)
incest (Lev 18:6 ff)
rape (Deut 22:25:27)

The seven deadly sins are pride,lust,avarice,anger,gluttony,envy and sloth.(ccc 1866)
Sins that “cry to heaven” the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner,the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.(ccc1867)

 

[Ron_Conte]

The seven deadly sins are pride,lust,avarice,anger,gluttony,envy and sloth.(ccc 1866)
Sins that “cry to heaven” the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner,the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.(ccc1867)

Not every sin condemned by Scripture is intrinsically evil. For example, what constitues a just wage depends on circumstances. In another example, slavery is intrinsically evil, but various degrees and types of subjection and servitude might be either moral, or immoral based on intention and circumstances (without being intrinsically evil).

 

[thomas_jd]

Not every sin condemned by Scripture is intrinsically evil. For example, what constitues a just wage depends on circumstances. In another example, slavery is intrinsically evil, but various degrees and types of subjection and servitude might be either moral, or immoral based on intention and circumstances (without being intrinsically evil).

All sins are intrinsically evil. Mortal and venial. It is always a sin to “not pay a just wage”
irregardless of circumstances or intention. Slavery is always evil.
Perhaps the distintion between mortal and venial sins may bring you a better answer.

 

[Ron_Conte]

All sins are intrinsically evil.

This claim is contrary to the clear and definitive teaching of the Magisterium. The CCC, the Compendium, the USCCB Catechism, and Veritatis Splendor all teach that there are three fonts of morality, (intention, moral object, circumstances) and that only acts with an evil moral object are intrinsically evil.

On the subject of lying as an intrinsically evil act, Jesus said that Satan is the father of lies (Jn 8:44). But if lying were sometimes moral, then Satan would not be the father of lies. It would be absurd to call Satan the father of acts which are sometimes good and noble, and only sometimes immoral. So John 8:44 implies that lying is intrinsically evil.

 

[thomas_jd]

This claim is contrary to the clear and definitive teaching of the Magisterium. The CCC, the Compendium, the USCCB Catechism, and Veritatis Splendor all teach that there are three fonts of morality, (intention, moral object, circumstances) and that only acts with an evil moral object are intrinsically evil.

On the subject of lying as an intrinsically evil act, Jesus said that Satan is the father of lies (Jn 8:44). But if lying were sometimes moral, then Satan would not be the father of lies. It would be absurd to call Satan the father of acts which are sometimes good and noble, and only sometimes immoral. So John 8:44 implies that lying is intrinsically evil.

Since all sin is evil, all sin is intrinsically evil. I will grant you that some are worse than others yet all seperate oneself from God.
I think the statement stands by itself. To look further I suggest examining St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Ron_Conte]

intrinsically evil sexual acts in Sacred Scripture:

Onan’s sin in Genesis 38 was that he committed a mortal sin by depriving the marital sexual act of its unitive and procreative meanings. This interpretation agrees with the teaching of Humanae Vitae on the necessity that each and every marital act retain both the unitive and procreative meanings. Separation of these meanings into separate acts is intrinsically evil and always a grave sin. The deprivation of either or both of these meanings from any marital sexual act is also intrinsically evil and always a grave sin.

The condemnation of Onan’s act in effect condemns not only all contracepted sexual acts, but also all non-unitive sexual acts (homosexual acts, masturbation, unnatural sexual acts in marriage).

The reason that all non-marital sexual acts, all non-unitive sexual acts, and all non-procreative sexual acts, are grave sins is that the realm of human sexuality involves such important values that every direct violation is objectively a grave sin.

Some commentators have claimed that Onan sinned only by treating his wife unjustly, depriving her of children. He did sin also in this way, but this sin is in his intention, and in the consequences of his act. There are three fonts of morality (intention, moral object, circumstances). Onan’s act was also intrinsically evil because it was a sexual act deprived of the unitive and procreative meanings.

Other commentators have claimed that the only sin in the marital bedroom is the husband ‘spilling his seed’ as Onan did. This approach to marital sexual ethics is false because it abandons the three fonts of morality, which the Church teaches is the basis for the morality or sinfulness of every knowingly chosen act. The fact that the right bodily fluids end up in the right location does not prove that no mortal sins were committed in other ways.

 

[thistle]

intrinsically evil sexual acts in Sacred Scripture:

Onan’s sin in Genesis 38 was that he committed a mortal sin by depriving the marital sexual act of its unitive and procreative meanings. This interpretation agrees with the teaching of Humanae Vitae on the necessity that each and every marital act retain both the unitive and procreative meanings. Separation of these meanings into separate acts is intrinsically evil and always a grave sin. The deprivation of either or both of these meanings from any marital sexual act is also intrinsically evil and always a grave sin.

The condemnation of Onan’s act in effect condemns not only all contracepted sexual acts, but also all non-unitive sexual acts (homosexual acts, masturbation, unnatural sexual acts in marriage).

The reason that all non-marital sexual acts, all non-unitive sexual acts, and all non-procreative sexual acts, are grave sins is that the realm of human sexuality involves such important values that every direct violation is objectively a grave sin.

Some commentators have claimed that Onan sinned only by treating his wife unjustly, depriving her of children. He did sin also in this way, but this sin is in his intention, and in the consequences of his act. There are three fonts of morality (intention, moral object, circumstances). Onan’s act was also intrinsically evil because it was a sexual act deprived of the unitive and procreative meanings.

Other commentators have claimed that the only sin in the marital bedroom is the husband ‘spilling his seed’ as Onan did. This approach to marital sexual ethics is false because it abandons the three fonts of morality, which the Church teaches is the basis for the morality or sinfulness of every knowingly chosen act. The fact that the right bodily fluids end up in the right location does not prove that no mortal sins were committed in other ways.

You are implying that foreplay is a sin and forbidden by the Church which of course is nonsense.
The sexual act within marriage is not simply putting tab A into slot B!!

 

[diggerdomer]

All sins are intrinsically evil. Mortal and venial. It is always a sin to “not pay a just wage”
irregardless of circumstances or intention. Slavery is always evil.
Perhaps the distintion between mortal and venial sins may bring you a better answer.

All sins are intrinsically evil in one hand, yes, but there is an important distinction of how the Church uses “intrinsically evil.” Most often, “intrinsically evil” refers to certain specific acts that are objectively wrong (e.g. abortion). That is not the same as saying they are sinful.

 

[thomas_jd]

All sins are intrinsically evil in one hand, yes, but there is an important distinction of how the Church uses “intrinsically evil.” Most often, “intrinsically evil” refers to certain specific acts that are objectively wrong (e.g. abortion). That is not the same as saying they are sinful.

The post is intrinsic evil in sacred scripture! You have the first sentence correct, you then mention acts. My position is clear. All sin is intrinistically evil.
If a liberal view is attached to sin the meaning can be distorted to the unaware.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The claim that all sin is intrinsically evil is contrary to the teaching of the Church in Veritatis Splendor, the CCC, the USCCB Catechism, and other sources. There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. Only when the moral object is evil is the act intrinsically evil.

For example, two men are praying in the Temple. The act of praying is not intrinsically evil. But one man sins, the Pharisee, and the other man does not sin, the publican, by their prayer, based on intention, not moral object (Lk 18:10-14).

A good act, done with evil intention is a sin; but the same good act done with a good intention is not a sin; therefore, the act itself is not intrinsically evil.

When an act is intrinsically evil, it is never justified by intention or circumstances.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

On the subject of intrinsically evil sexual acts, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, Saint Augustine condemns unnatural sexual acts even within marriage. So far from saying that such acts are permissible in marriage, he states that these acts are more sinful when done within marriage.

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife…. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, n. 11-12).

By saying ‘the natural use’ and ‘that which is against nature’, Saint Augustine references the passage in Romans 1 which condemns unnatural sexual acts. Saint Augustine applies this condemnation to any non-procreative and/or non-unitive sexual acts (i.e. unnatural sexual acts) even between a man and a woman who are married to each other.

 

[thomas_jd]

The claim that all sin is intrinsically evil is contrary to the teaching of the Church in Veritatis Splendor, the CCC, the USCCB Catechism, and other sources. There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. Only when the moral object is evil is the act intrinsically evil.

For example, two men are praying in the Temple. The act of praying is not intrinsically evil. But one man sins, the Pharisee, and the other man does not sin, the publican, by their prayer, based on intention, not moral object (Lk 18:10-14).

A good act, done with evil intention is a sin; but the same good act done with a good intention is not a sin; therefore, the act itself is not intrinsically evil.

When an act is intrinsically evil, it is never justified by intention or circumstances.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

On the subject of intrinsically evil sexual acts, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, Saint Augustine condemns unnatural sexual acts even within marriage. So far from saying that such acts are permissible in marriage, he states that these acts are more sinful when done within marriage.

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife…. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, n. 11-12).

By saying ‘the natural use’ and ‘that which is against nature’, Saint Augustine references the passage in Romans 1 which condemns unnatural sexual acts. Saint Augustine applies this condemnation to any non-procreative and/or non-unitive sexual acts (i.e. unnatural sexual acts) even between a man and a woman who are married to each other.

You are confusing the act with the sin. All sin is evil.

 

[Bookcat]

All sins are intrinsically evil. Mortal and venial. It is always a sin to “not pay a just wage”
irregardless of circumstances or intention. Slavery is always evil.
Perhaps the distintion between mortal and venial sins may bring you a better answer.

Thomas

The Churches teaching here is that some acts are intrinsic evils…others are not in themselves the “object” itself is good like “prayer” but the action of prayer has “evil enter in” when it is done for a say a bad intention like praying for the sake of pride or vanity…

Prayer in its self is good…but to pray for an evil intention…that brings evil into the picture…and the Church teaches that all three need to be good…object, intention and circumstance…(see CCC)

This part is correct…

 

[Bookcat]

The claim that all sin is intrinsically evil is contrary to the teaching of the Church in Veritatis Splendor, the CCC, the USCCB Catechism, and other sources. There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. Only when the moral object is evil is the act intrinsically evil.

For example, two men are praying in the Temple. The act of praying is not intrinsically evil. But one man sins, the Pharisee, and the other man does not sin, the publican, by their prayer, based on intention, not moral object (Lk 18:10-14).

A good act, done with evil intention is a sin; but the same good act done with a good intention is not a sin; therefore, the act itself is not intrinsically evil.

When an act is intrinsically evil, it is never justified by intention or circumstances.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

On the subject of intrinsically evil sexual acts, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, Saint Augustine condemns unnatural sexual acts even within marriage. So far from saying that such acts are permissible in marriage, he states that these acts are more sinful when done within marriage.

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife…. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, n. 11-12).

By saying ‘the natural use’ and ‘that which is against nature’, Saint Augustine references the passage in Romans 1 which condemns unnatural sexual acts. Saint Augustine applies this condemnation to any non-procreative and/or non-unitive sexual acts (i.e. unnatural sexual acts) even between a man and a woman who are married to each other.

Unnatural sexual acts --are sinful. In marriage or not. Yes indeed!

Chaste foreplay as part of the rightly ordered marital act are not unnatural sexual acts (we are not to really get into descriptions here…(yes some things must be excluded…that are onanistic etc for they are not good… )

(no where will one find the Church teaching such…and trust me such is so wide spread that by now if such were sinful it would be noted…as it is with say pornography etc…and very orthodox moral theologians teach that such is fine if rightly ordered …including those who wrote in the older manualist moral theology tradition that were used by confessors a good deal)

 

[thomas_jd]

Thomas

The Churches teaching here is that some acts are intrinsic evils…others are not in themselves the “object” itself is good like “prayer” but the action of prayer has “evil enter in” when it is done for a say a bad intention like praying for the sake of pride or vanity…

Prayer in its self is good…but to pray for an evil intention…that brings evil into the picture…and the Church teaches that all three need to be good…object, intention and circumstance…(see CCC)

This part is correct…

The issue is not the acts themselves, acts are just acts,which naturally can be good or bad, but the statement is " intrinsic evil ". Intrinsic < "the very nature of something>: evil< " a action against God>
I see sin as intrinsic evil.
Perhaps the word acts should be inserted in the heading. I do not want to derail this thread. Good Luck!

 

[Bookcat]

The issue is not the acts themselves, acts are just acts,which naturally can be good or bad, but the statement is " intrinsic evil ". Intrinsic < "the very nature of something>: evil< " a action against God>
I see sin as intrinsic evil.
Perhaps the word acts should be inserted in the heading. I do not want to derail this thread. Good Luck!

I am using the term the way the Church and theology uses it…

(of course sin is evil…but the Church is very particular here)

(and intrinsically evil acts are not “just acts”…they are intrinsically evil acts…acts that are evil in and of themselves and are never good…such as murder, adultery, fornication (and yes I understand you would not say they were…))

 

[thomas_jd]

I am using the term the way the Church and theology uses it…

(of course sin is evil…but the Church is very particular here)

(and intrinsically evil acts are not “just acts”…they are intrinsically evil acts…acts that are evil in and of themselves and are never good…such as murder, adultery, fornication (and yes I understand you would not say they were…))

I am using the term the way Jesus used it .“Go and sin no more”
All sin is evil.
( and intrinsicially evil “acts” are intrinisically evil" just as wholesome acts are “Good” acts.
The act can be good or bad, the Sin is what makes it evil.

 

[Bookcat]

I am using the term the way Jesus used it .“Go and sin no more”
All sin is evil.
( and intrinsicially evil “acts” are intrinisically evil" just as wholesome acts are “Good” acts.
The act can be good or bad, the Sin is what makes it evil.

It is not a question of if “sin” is an evil. (yes all sin is evil)

It is if a certain act is "intrinicsically evil…

This is a theological term that has a very precise meaning…that is a act that is in itself always evil “objectively” in itself (intrinically) …like fornication, adultery etc. No good intention can make it good…always and everywhere…adultery is by itself an objective evil act.

(that is what is meant)

Where as praying public for the sake of pride is a an evil due to the evil intention. Prayer itself is not an intrinsically evil act.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm#I

No point to debate this…sure sin is evil.

Anyhow it is important to note that an act that is “good” or wholesome like prayer can be rendered evil…sin can occur…from a bad intention.

Where as the opposite is not true…an intrinsically evil act can never be made “good” by a good intention.

CCC:

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end (meaning here “intention”-BC) corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[diggerdomer]

The post is intrinsic evil in sacred scripture! You have the first sentence correct, you then mention acts. My position is clear. All sin is intrinistically evil.
If a liberal view is attached to sin the meaning can be distorted to the unaware.

Sin may be intrinsically evil, but not every act that is sinful in a given circumstance is objectively an intrinsically sinful act.

 

[thomas_jd]

Sin may be intrinsically evil, but not every act that is sinful in a given circumstance is objectively an intrinsically sinful act.

Good, you have seperated sin from acts! There are some sins that wound us greater than others.