Nothing Venial in Sexual Sins?

[AndyF]

This was asked before on this forum but couldn’t find the thread, so if I’m off base here, then your probably right.

It occured to me that nothing can be venial in sexual transgressions, has the object in any sexual expression is to assist the individual’s persuassion to complete the sexual act.

If a person winks at a girl, then the wink’s task is one of many that make up the whole that assists in the realization of the mortal object. The individual tasks that each subordinate persuassion offers is part of a multi process, 1/to capture her interest, 2/to further court her, 3/to further have a sexual relation with her. The last is always the same. Driving lust may not be evident in the first persuasion, but what they have in common is that they both are an expression of interest, making them intrinsically the same.

Some may say the intent was innocent playing, but the act itself may have it’s origin in antiquity and have a very specific sexual purpose. It is this purpose that defines it’s intrinsicity, not our definition. Nature does so out of it’s program to capture interest. If the subject responded, most likely a second task in the realization process would be to establish a rendevous.

Take any sexual expression, and the end object is always to ensure procreation. Therefore all sexual sins are intrinsically mortal has they all have as their object the parent sexual act.

What about makeup?, combing hair to be made attractive?, all have the same object. Is there nothing concerning gender comparitively that has a neutral connotation?.

 I'm talking mainly in a context where it is sinful, not expressing to a spouse.

 No? Yes? Maybe? :D

 AndyF

 

[setter]

Take any sexual expression, and the end object is always to ensure procreation. Therefore all sexual sins are intrinsically mortal has they all have as their object the parent sexual act.

No? Yes? Maybe?

 AndyF

Yes, most sexual sins are grave sins and if the conditions are met they are mortal sins that left unrepentant will deprive one of entry into heaven upon judgment day.

 

[LilyM]

But at the same time - sex is one area where it’s easier than most to act without the requisite intent for mortal sin. Habits and impulses are much easier to form.

 

[AndyF]

Yes, most sexual sins are grave sins and if the conditions are met they are mortal sins that left unrepentant will deprive one of entry into heaven upon judgment day.

Thanks setter.

Would you conclude from this that adults inherit by nature of their changed psycholigical and physical state at maturity, an inordinate propensity to mortal sin relative to non mature adults?

AndyF

 

[setter]

Thanks setter.

Would you conclude from this that adults inherit by nature of their changed psycholigical and physical state at maturity, an inordinate propensity to mortal sin relative to non mature adults?

AndyF

The inherent propensity/tendency toward sin is a feature or man’s fallen sinful nature. As one advances along developmental lines (cognitive, social, psychological, physical, …) the complexity of “inordinate propensity” to sin simply takes on a wider depth and range of temptation. Hence, the (name removed by moderator)ut and guidance of early and later formative experiences (faith, virtue, loving, positve social/cultural, … versus their opposites) intertwined with personal choice factor in to whether one is committed to seeking holiness and the kingdom of God first or the opposite (after all, there are only two destinies on judgment day). Also, not to forget the the devil’s agenda to personally trip one up or lead astray in sin choices and habit. IMHO.

An example of this developmental realization is when Jesus at age 12 was found by his worried parents in the temple where “all who heard him were astaounded at his understanding and answers”, and he exclaimed to them upon being found “Wht were you looking for me? did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”. (Luke 2: 46-49)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I disagree with your assessment. Physiological responses occur in men when a pretty young woman is present. I do not believe these types of response are sin. Psychological intent comes from the conscious and this is the house of free will and thus the origin of sin must come from the conscious.

I find your example some what funny in that how would a boy and girl every make it to man and wife if they could not flirt ?

 

[setter]

I disagree with your assessment. Physiological responses occur in men when a pretty young woman is present. I do not believe these types of response are sin. Psychological intent comes from the conscious and this is the house of free will and thus the origin of sin must come from the conscious.

I find your example some what funny in that how would a boy and girl every make it to man and wife if they could not flirt ?

How many physiological responses do not have an accompanying cognition? Example: Body hungry, body craving nutrition, thoughts are to get some food, drive by Mc Donalds, tempting thoughts to zip in the drive through and get some fries and burger to satisfy the appetite. Seems simple enough to me that man/woman needs to master their natural bodily appetities in accord with the intended purpose (i.e., good nutrition).

 

[AndyF]

The inherent propensity/tendency toward sin is a feature or man’s fallen sinful nature. As one advances along developmental lines (cognitive, social, psychological, physical, …) the complexity of “inordinate propensity” to sin simply takes on a wider depth and range of temptation.

Good answer, thanks. (My original question to you was an introduction on this very idea.)

faith, virtue, loving, positve social/cultural.

And of those that are absolute(decalogue), we find a favoritism that forms by default of age. The age doesn’t form a conflict, it’s time, and sex requires time to mature, and maturity the propensity to sin. A person taken in immaturity, up to that point could never have been a candidate for that sin, and need only concern himself for the moment with commands that apply to him. Taken after maturity, he carries the responsibility of the rest of the decalogue.

We are left then with individuals who’s age at death defaults them to being capable of breaching a lessor number of sins of the full set of the decalogue available.

Judged on the decalogue alone, even with random call backs, we have a predictable pattern of people that is visible in the decalogue selection. We would not find it unusual that the majority who didn’t make it were mature people, and that should never be predictable. (Actually, it just occured to me the Blessed Mother revealed to the Fatima children that there were more people in hell for sins of the flesh than for any other).

For balance, adults could be made culpabable for only a range of sins that exclude them from the immature individuals, or, culpability could be downgraded (hence Venial) , or, any other adjusting machanism employed.

Failing this, everyone dies as adults. Hey, the kids like it.

(Gotta loosen up here and take some jogging, getting much too serious. Anyone doing back rubs out there?)

Thanks again.

AndyF

 

[Struggling]

Most sexual sins are mortal, just given how important reproduction is to humanity, and thus how grave any desecration of it is.

But some brief impure thoughts can probably be venial if you stop them fast enough and they aren’t too explicit or fueled by lust…

 

[AndyF]

Struggling:

Most sexual sins are mortal, just given how important reproduction is to humanity, and thus how grave any desecration of it is.

True.

Most…Can probably be…?

Can we afford to be content about the uncertainty? We’re not talking about a severe reprimand if we get it wrong.

I wonder if in most cases by now, the always mortal acts can be separated from the circumstantial/contextual ones to the extent that man could be given a revelation sub list of these. In the thousands of years of our existance, I think most circumstances have played out sufficiently and to some predictability to be able to compile a more detailed command list.

Anyway, I still think adult man could do with more assistance than what he gets now. Meanwhile, I suppose it’s best to confess everything.

Thanks for the post.

AndyF

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How many physiological responses do not have an accompanying cognition? Example: Body hungry, body craving nutrition, thoughts are to get some food, drive by Mc Donalds, tempting thoughts to zip in the drive through and get some fries and burger to satisfy the appetite. Seems simple enough to me that man/woman needs to master their natural bodily appetities in accord with the intended purpose (i.e., good nutrition).

Exactly, whether you eat the fatty food or not is the issue. Your body does not make this decision, your cognitive abilities do. Sin is based in your cognitive actions. Abstaining is an option in the cognitive thought only -thanks

 

[Ron_Conte]

The teaching that all sexual sins involve a serious matter and are therefore always objective mortal sin is true when properly understood. This refers only to sexual acts per se, and not to anything that is the least bit sexual, such as flirtation or kissing. So, it is not true that any sin which has a sexual element to it is objectively mortal. Only sexual sins in the narrower sense of sexual acts are objectively gravely immoral.

However, sexual sins in the broader sense which involve a lesser matter can still be a mortal sin if they are done purely out of lust, and not as an expression of genuine love and affection.

Ron Conte

 

[Al_Masetti]

Sexual sins may also involve coping with intimacy issues, dealing with a history of parental or sexual abuse, bad habits, and a host of other “psychological behaviors”.

The best person to talk with is a confessor.

If the venue of a confessional doesn’t provide enough time to discuss the subject, or if there is a language barrier, or a cultural barrier, or some other unsatisfactory aspect, then ask if the confessor is or knows of a spiritual director. And arrange to make an appointment so a full hour meeting can be arranged.

It’s more common than you might think. Check with a confessor.

This kind of “chat room” is not an appropriate place to get a reading about venial versus mortal sin in connection with sexual behavior.

 

[CuriousInIL]

The teaching that all sexual sins involve a serious matter and are therefore always objective mortal sin is true when properly understood. This refers only to sexual acts per se, and not to anything that is the least bit sexual, such as flirtation or kissing. So, it is not true that any sin which has a sexual element to it is objectively mortal. Only sexual sins in the narrower sense of sexual acts are objectively gravely immoral.

However, sexual sins in the broader sense which involve a lesser matter can still be a mortal sin if they are done purely out of lust, and not as an expression of genuine love and affection.

Ron Conte

What do you mean by “sexual acts per se”? How are they distinguidhed from something that is “the least bit sexual”?

 

[Celtic_FC]

I disagree too, I wink at people all of the time. When did it ever mean I want to sleep with you?

 

[CuriousInIL]

I knew that I could kill this thread.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I knew that I could kill this thread.

Gee, ya know, it’s kind of tough to graphically and uncompromisingly describe sexual sins in a public forum by talking around the subject …

I mean, like, what the heck is a “sexual sin”… [yeah, well, maybe I can’t describe it, but I’ll know it when I see it.]

I once asked a priest who publishes a very articulate newsletter to define lust and concupiscience.

Hmmm… that was fun… ya almost have give examples … but then ya end up having to talk around the subject … and then there always exceptions.

Maybe Harry Belafonte said it best.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Gee, ya know, it’s kind of tough to graphically and uncompromisingly describe sexual sins in a public forum by talking around the subject …

I mean, like, what the heck is a “sexual sin”… [yeah, well, maybe I can’t describe it, but I’ll know it when I see it.]

I once asked a priest who publishes a very articulate newsletter to define lust and concupiscience.

Hmmm… that was fun… ya almost have give examples … but then ya end up having to talk around the subject … and then there always exceptions.

Maybe Harry Belafonte said it best.

Is he co-authoring with Christopher West?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Is he co-authoring with Christopher West?

To music:

The man piaba.

The woman piaba.

etc… can’t remember the rest.

Someone said that when you get old the memory is the second thing that goes… and I can’t remember the first.