Sexual ethics and society

[27lw]

27lw:

The difference is that in St. Paul’s time, sexual immorality and promiscuity were not promoted as normal behavior.

After studying Renaissance Italy you may want to study ancient Rome and Greece. As weird as things have become, we still shun what they “normally” did and promoted back then, and let’s pray the culture never gets as bad as it was.

Paul is talking to Christians trying to live a righteous life, right? Or is he talking to pan-sexual twenty-somethings who are away at college?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Also , sometimes when we are scared of being judged, we over-compensate and judge them preemptively (“they’re not so great, look how messed up theirs life is”) to avoid or blunt the pain of being rejected.

Really, just try to get to know people first. Some of them will reject you. You’ll maybe not like them too much after a while. But maybe on the other hand you’ll be friends.

 

[TMC]

Because these are people with whom I’m going to spend the next 3 years with, and eventually they’re going to realise that I’m a bit different, and then one is at risk of becoming an outcast.

Honestly, you will be dealing with people for the rest of your life. I am sure many of them will find you immoral and worthy of disdain, just as you find them. My advice would be to figure out how to deal with people of differing beliefs, because that is a skill you will need. Trying to understand and respect them (even if you disagree) is generally a good start.

 

[mary77]

Its hard to be alone among people who do not see the forest for the trees. People are annoyingly open about their incorrect thinking however, you do not know if some are pretending to dish the dirt because that is how they learned to appear to be like everyone else. Speak your mind, tell people what you think right back. Thats honest. You just might be suprized. Be patient.

 

[Riman643]

just try not to judge them. you can judge and hate the sin but not the sinner.

This is not good advice. It is okay to judge someone. We were given the ability to judge whether actions are right and wrong and we have an obligation to speak the truth. I have no issues telling my friends if they are doing something gross or evil. Just don’t go about judging their souls.

 

[Riman643]

I feel like the saying should be judge the sinner not the soul. Clearly if there was a convicted murderer you would not feel unsafe around them because we are judging their character based on actions. What we can’t say is that they are going to hell. The whole “judge the sin not the sinner” has in many cases been more of a libertarian relaxed view on sin which is absolutely wrong. Premarital sex is evil no question and we should be afraid to say so.

 

[Uberdenker]

Thank you all for your replies. I couldn’t reply yesterday as I had reached the maximum number of replies allowed for a new user.

I didn’t intend for this to become a theological debate about sin etc. but merely sought some guidance concerning my own personal sense of morality. I only mentioned Christianity because I suppose that is the foundation of my moral standards. In fact, things like this usually don’t bother me at all; in that sense I’m fairly liberal. Some people even (wrongly) think I’m an atheist. However, since socialising more with people who clearly don’t have the same values – and actively promote their deeds – it has strongly affected me. To an extent it has driven me to return to my Christian values.

Obviously it’s not convenient to only associate with people who hold the same beliefs as yourself; indeed St Paul humorously said that we would have to “go out of this world” to do that. Whether choosing not to socialise with these people is Catholic or not I don’t know – I’m not a theologian. I’m aware that St Paul spoke harshly about these things and instructed Christians to “shun fornication”; sexual immorality is clearly written about in both 1 Corinthians and Romans. The CCC states that which is scandalous is a “behaviour which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbour’s tempter”, 2284. “They are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice”, 2286.

I know personally that if I was to join these people in regular conversation and activity then I would risk being roped into things that I wouldn’t usually do. To avoid temptation is surely Catholic teaching. That’s not to say I won’t speak to these people or be polite, but I cannot conceive reaching a point where one could call them friends – i.e. brothers and sisters.

Thanks again everyone for expressing their views and offering advice. I wish you a blessed day today.

 

[Riman643]

You are completely wrong. No where did I state that I was better than anybody or that I am self-righteous. That is called a straw man and you are . . . attacking a position I do not hold. Judging is a good thing. We use our judgement to do a lot of things such as assessing dangers or making moral choices and we judge others all of the time. That is why when given the choice you are not going to . . . to hang out with a convicted murderer. We are judging their actions and I am assuming you would condemn actions that are evil such as murder no? Would you not say and declare that murder is evil? Premarital sex is evil and as Catholics we should not be cowards when stating it. When my friends engage in grave actions I judge them by their actions and I have the obligation to speak the truth. It does not make them evil people or that they will go to hell. If they were turned off before to Catholicism and not hearing the truth why would speaking the truth be any different? At least they hear it from someone they know, trust, and like. . . . I stand for the truth and you should too.

 

[Uberdenker]

Now for some points I’d like to come back on.

@1ke

This is not Catholic teaching.

It can be in particular instances. St Paul speaks about this in 1 & 2 Corinthians. If a group of “friends” were doing things in direct contradiction to the Natural Law and, as a Catholic, one didn’t object or show disapproval, then the Catechism states that you’ve become complacent and have contributed to the development of social sin. In today’s culture, if you do object, then it’s unlikely that they’ll remain your friend.

@White_Tree Again I agree with much of what you have said. When I said

I might as well join them if nobody’s going to judge me.

I meant that if there is no judgement then there are no consequences; there would be no purpose in being Christian (or anything else). While the scripture you have quoted is correct, Jesus also said in the next verse (Matthew 7: 4-5)

How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

How can one take the speck - that is sin - out of your brother’s eye without first judging that what they do is sinful? And again in Mt 18:15-18

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

My Catholic study Bible says “Gentile… tax collector: Two groups generally despised by first-century Jews. The choice of these terms suggest that Jesus requires a policy of non-association with those who are disciplined by leaders of the Church.”

In order to “loose and bind” it must be judged what is sinful and what is not. So when you say:

If you are condemning someone, it is because you have the thing for which you condemn them in your own heart.

This implies that St Paul had all the sins that he condemned throughout his writings; and the authors of everything that has ever been written or promulgated about sin and morality must have had “in their own heart” the exact things that they were writing about. Unless there is more to your argument, or you can give some references for further reading, then it doesn’t have much substance.

 

[Uberdenker]

@Lou2U I agree with much of what you said. However your statement

Remember that there’s nothing wrong with bisexuality

I do not agree with as a statement of definite truth. It very much depends on the basis of your morality. For billions of people whose morality is founded upon that of Natural Law it is unnatural and, for the most part, a transgression of God’s commandments.

 

[Riman643]

?

A strawman is when you attack a point of view or argument that a person doesn’t have. That is exactly what you did.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Don’t change the goal posts to suit yourself, please. It makes for a very annoying debate.

It is exactly what we are talking about. I didn’t change any goalposts. . . .

I see. I have just taken a look at your profile and realized that you are a child. You made a thread once about hating your parents, right? Anyways, I have no interest in debating children, nor be insulted by them. If you are too immature to debate without throwing insults or changing the goalposts of what you were saying to suit yourself, then I’m afraid you’ll have to tolerate me not responding to you. I have no interest in reading petulant rants.

I am not a child and I do not hate my parents. This is what is called an ad hominen attack. Because you have no actual refutation to my argument you attack my character. I never once insulted you or moved goalposts. . . .

 

[mary77]

i beleive we know what is right and wrong without fully understanding why. Have you figured out why you feel the way some behave sexually is not appealing to you? I think the catholic catechism goes into depth on this subject for anyone who wants to understand themselves who are blessed this way.

 

[FiveLinden]

Mrs FiveLinden and I have been living in a sexual relationship not approved in Catholic teaching for the best part of half a century now and we have always been treated with the greatest respect and courtesy by Catholics. Most of these Catholics, I know, also show the same respect and courtesy to couples in same-sex and casual relationships. As far as I know there is nothing in Church teaching to suggest they do anything else. Is there?

 

[White_Tree]

I meant that if there is no judgement then there are no consequences; there would be no purpose in being Christian (or anything else).

A fair point. And what I meant, is that even if there were no consequences, if you were truly free from the sin in the way that I am advocating, then that lifestyle would have no appeal to you whatsoever. The “pleasure” that people think they gain from sin is based in ignorance, from a fundamentally mistaken and disordered view of the world. And recognizing that does not require any sort of religious belief. It merely requires an unpolluted perception of the nature of our experience.

The sin we have in our heart pollutes our perception, and causes us to believe that painful things are actually pleasurable. Were it not for that misperception, we would recognize that pain for what it is, and we would not desire it at all.

No one would say, “If it weren’t for the punishment of God, I would shove long needles in my eyes.” Similarly, if our heart is truly free from the pollution of a particular sin, that sin will have no appeal, regardless of the consequences.

(Part 1 of 2)

 

[White_Tree]

This implies that St Paul had all the sins that he condemned throughout his writings; and the authors of everything that has ever been written or promulgated about sin and morality must have had “in their own heart” the exact things that they were writing about. Unless there is more to your argument, or you can give some references for further reading, then it doesn’t have much substance.

I’m glad you asked about this, because it is a common point of misunderstanding on this topic.

As I was just explaining, it is entirely possible to be free from a particular sin and yet still recognize that sin as something disordered. Having your heart free of temptation clarifies rather than obscures reality.

The point I was trying to make regarding condemnation and possessing the sin inside relates to the personal disruption of our mental equilibrium when we encounter someone who exhibits a sin we carry within, particularly if it is a sin with which we struggle.

The impression I got from reading your original post was that you were struggling with feelings of disdain towards your friends, and I offered advice on how to root out the source of those feelings so that you can regain your sense of compassion and equanimity.

When Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultery, He said, “Neither do I condemn you” (John 8:11). That does not mean that Jesus was condoning her actions. Rather, He felt no condemnation towards her in His heart, because His heart was pure.

He can (and did) condemn the sin of adultery, and many other sins. But it is one thing to condemn the sin, and another thing to feel negative emotions, like judgment or condemnation towards another person. Those negative emotions originate in our own struggle with the sin. And if we want to be free of them, we must eliminate the sin.

Only then can we, as our Lord said, “see clearly to remove the speck from our brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). Because only then can we recognize the action of the sin for what it is (pain), and approach our neighbor from a place of love and compassion, because we will recognize them as doing something that is causing them to suffer, and they do not even realize the nature of their own suffering.

But if we still have the sin inside, then our neighbor’s suffering will look like pleasure, because it seems like pleasure to us, and the well of compassion we should have for them will be dry. If we do not recognize our own ignorance, how can we recognize the ignorance of others, and how can we grant them any clarity?

Does that clarify things at all?

(Part 2 of 2)

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I lived in a dorm in the 80s, also in the late 90s, and in the 00’s, and I have friends who have lived in dorms more recently.

I’m just curious, why/how were you living in a dorm so many years later?

 

[fhansen]

Well, its ok to be intolerant of sin. But we also have to remind ourselves that we’re all sinners in one way or another. The more we understand that they’re behavior truly is wrong, and the more we understand why Church teachings are right, then the greater tolerance we can have, for the right reasons, out of love and understanding. Jesus came to heal the sick-to forgive, not to condemn.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

These are people with whom I’m going to be “socialising” and studying. If I don’t socialise with them, then I’m being intolerable. If I do socialise then I’m a traitor to my own code of ethics and a hypocrite.

There’s no obligation to socialise with them. I think staying quiet and being cordial would be the best way to go through this.