Is buying something immoral a separate sin than using it?

[newbie9]

When I say buying something immoral I mean something on its surface that is inherently wrong and not something that, if used improperly could be wrong (like alcohol to the point of losing reason, etc.). Let’s take pornography. Is buying that immoral product a sin separate from viewing it to the point that if you confessed just viewing pornography that you wouldn’t be completely confessing (assuming you paid for it)? Or as a separate example, artificial contraception. Would just confessing that you used artificial contraception sufficient or is the buying a separate sin?

Basically would the fact that you paid money for something immoral make that actual exchange of money a separate sin from the using of the immoral item?

 

[valentino]

Don’t quote me on this but I believe I heard where the Pope okayed using contraception is some extreme case as when a spouse is HIV positive.I’d post it but can’t seem to be able to.

 

[svid2]

Well, I’m no expert on moral theology, but it seems as if buying pornography is a separate sin, because you’re supporting the pornography business. Even if you get a case of guilt and throw it away without ever looking at it, you still have sinned. Just my opinion.

 

[JRKH]

Don’t quote me on this but I believe I heard where the Pope okayed using contraception is some extreme case as when a spouse is HIV positive.I’d post it but can’t seem to be able to.

OK we won’t quote you because he never OK’d such use.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

When I say buying something immoral I mean something on its surface that is inherently wrong and not something that, if used improperly could be wrong (like alcohol to the point of losing reason, etc.). Let’s take pornography. Is buying that immoral product a sin separate from viewing it to the point that if you confessed just viewing pornography that you wouldn’t be completely confessing (assuming you paid for it)? Or as a separate example, artificial contraception. Would just confessing that you used artificial contraception sufficient or is the buying a separate sin?

Basically would the fact that you paid money for something immoral make that actual exchange of money a separate sin from the using of the immoral item?

Buying the immoral object is a sin…No doubt about it. Using it is also a sin. Now as far as confessing is concerned, I don’t think you need seperate the two things though it likely effect the number of instances of sin…
Using your example of pornography, the desire to buy it is lust, and using it is a second occasion of lust. Same sin, two occasions…

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

Yes.

Though of course it is related to the other sins.

 

[Peepers]

OK we won’t quote you because he never OK’d such use.

Peace
James

Actually, that one made the news. The Pope did say that in some circumstances that contraceptive use is OK in order to protect one spouse from and HIV infected spouse.

 

[Peepers]

On the question posed by the OP, yes it is a sin to purchase porn, or to support any other immoral act financially. Makes sense, doesn’t it? In this case the point is not what you do with the porn, but the fact that you gave your money in support of it.

 

[Bookcat]

Buying the immoral object is a sin…No doubt about it. Using it is also a sin. Now as far as confessing is concerned, I don’t think you need seperate the two things though it likely effect the number of instances of sin…
Using your example of pornography, the desire to buy it is lust, and using it is a second occasion of lust. Same sin, two occasions…

Peace
James

One would though say more than lust…one would get into the species…lust would be too general.

I bought pornography and looked at it lustfully 1x …

and of course anything else needful…like you lead someone into sin …say let your friend look at it…etc

jimmyakin.org/2007/03/specific_confes.html

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, that one made the news. The Pope did say that in some circumstances that contraceptive use is OK in order to protect one spouse from and HIV infected spouse.

Actually not…he NEVER said such. It was misread …or misreported.

He was giving the example of an infected person with aids engaged in a form of prostitution using such…that it was a “first step” …but not that it was a good act…sort of like me saying it is a good first step for a bank robber to use fake bullets…but such does not make using a gun to rob a bank with fake bullets ok…it is only a first step …

Here is the official document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

"As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question, the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. "

 

[Peepers]

Actually not…he NEVER said such. It was misread …or misreported.

He was giving the example of an infected person with aids engaged in a form of prostitution using such…that it was a “first step” …but not that it was a good act…sort of like me saying it is a good first step for a bank robber to use fake bullets…but such does not make using a gun to rob a bank with fake bullets ok…it is only a first step …

Here is the official document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

"As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question, the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. "

Here is the headline and the link to the Guardian article. According to the article, the Pope made the statement in an interview:
Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV

			 					Comments in interview signal break with Vatican's blanket ban on the use of contraceptives

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection

 

[Bookcat]

Here is the headline and the link to the Guardian article. According to the article, the Pope made the statement in an interview:
Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV

			 					Comments in interview signal break with Vatican's blanket ban on the use of contraceptives

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection

Yes I can quote you many more just like that !!! They were all over the place…

But they were very very very incorrect. I have the book. It was misunderstood…misread etc… I followed the whole thing.

The official document from the CDF put all those very wrong headlines to rest.

 

[JRKH]

Here is the headline and the link to the Guardian article. According to the article, the Pope made the statement in an interview:
Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV

			 					Comments in interview signal break with Vatican's blanket ban on the use of contraceptives

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection

As Bookcat said, there were hundreds of such headlines and articles.
But if a Catholic has a choice between what the newspapers report and what the Vatican says on a matter, which do you think we should follow?

Read the linked Vatican Document to get the truth.

Now lets get back to the OP’s question…

Peace
James

 

[NeedImprovement]

Yes I can quote you many more just like that !!! They were all over the place…

But they were very very very incorrect. I have the book. It was misunderstood…misread etc… I followed the whole thing.

The official document from the CDF put all those very wrong headlines to rest.

This makes much more sense than the post you’re responding to does.

Thankyou.

I think our Catholic members will find Father Z’s blog (which suggests he also has a copy of the same book [as Bookcat owns] ) article entitled The Pope Did Not Endorse the Use of Condoms to be a much more “trustworthy” source.

It wouldn’t hurt to pray for people who are able to clearly see the sinfulness of pornography evidenced by its the devastating effects, but who remain unable to make the same connection concerning the use of condoms. It is all part of what Father John Hardon S.J. refers to as **SEXUAL SUICIDE **.

In 1993, Pope John Paul II said in his letter to his bishops, sex before marriage and contraception were intrinsically evil. He repeated this truth in different ways numerous times during his pontificate ; notably in the Theology of The Body where he developed Pope Paul VI’s teaching against contraception specified in *Humanae Vitae *.

That their successor Pope Benedict XVI should contradict that teaching, particularly in light of all the theology he has written about in his previous prefecture is nothing less than preposterous. Why would people come to CAF suggesing such things other than to instigate or agitate?

Father Z intimates that the quote in question is referring to the example of the acts involving male prostitutes. We all know how clear the holy Catholic Church’s teaching is on that (ahem) subject.

Condoms were originally invented to prevent conception. That makes their origin evil. That they should somehow provide some protection (not 100% and never garanteed) against STD’s is a secondary effect.

For those naturally capable of procreating, contraception leads to abortion.

Bottom line :

Whoever buys condoms to use them is sinning (and why else would you buy them?) Because even if one is buying them to (ahem) protect someone from STD’s - whether that partner is naturally capable of procreation, it is always a sin.

Pope John Paul II confirmed in *The Splendor of Truth *that what St. Thomas Aquinas stated concerning the moral law is still just as applicable today:

"The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will. "

So, in short, whoever buys a condom is either intending to have sex outside of marriage or intending to lessen, or impair the marriage act by removing the generative element, which in turn, affects the unitive element.

 

[Peepers]

I just read the relevant sections of the book. The Pontiff criticizes the use of condoms as implying “the banalization of sexuality” which is the source of no longer seeing sex as an expression of love. He makes the surprising statement:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed, and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”

He goes on to say that condoms are not the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection, but rather the humanization of sexuality. The interviewer then presses him further:

“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality.”

 

[Bookcat]

I just read the relevant sections of the book. The Pontiff criticizes the use of condoms as implying “the banalization of sexuality” which is the source of no longer seeing sex as an expression of love. He makes the surprising statement:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed, and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”

He goes on to say that condoms are not the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection, but rather the humanization of sexuality. The interviewer then presses him further:

“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality.”

Right…just as I said above (the person is starting to think of others…starting…a first step in seeing the various evil he is doing and value of he human life etc…not that the use of condoms was endorsed or ok as the media thought) and as the CDF document states (though there is more too it of course…it is a great book and great doc from the CDF)

The media headlines etc as you now see were very wrong. (such can often be the case…)

 

[Peepers]

There is the recognition that spiritual growth is a process, perhaps never perfectly achieved.

 

[JRKH]

There is the recognition that spiritual growth is a process, perhaps never perfectly achieved.

Absolutely.

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

There is the recognition that spiritual growth is a process, perhaps never perfectly achieved.

Sure …yes of course…not that the use of a condom here is seen as “a good act that is “ok””…it is rather that the person is starting to see that hey…human life is important …and thus by seeing this…one hopes they will begin to see the meaning of sexuality …can convert from the grave evil they are doing…to move from death to life in Christ.

Just as if I was a serial killer who liked to cause great pain to those I murdered before I did so…but then one day I got to know one of them…and felt regret for such…and so in the future I drug all my victims before I murder them…so they do not feel any pain…such is a “step in the right direction”…a beginning to see the value of human life…

But none of my actions are “good”…it is not moral to drug people and then murder them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Buying the immoral object is a sin…No doubt about it…

That depends on the purpose for which it was bought. For example, take condoms. I saw a science experiment once that used a condom as an exceptionally compliant pressurized air reservoir. In that application, something like a party balloon was unsuitable. Buying condoms for a purpose like that can be perfectly fine, as long as you are not making some allusion to its sexual use and are using it strictly for its physical properties when no equivalently-performing product is available.