Sin to watch a video the wife and I made?

[Chancellare]

No, I didn’t. Perhaps you should reread my post. I talked about someone who did not assume in response to your presupposition that one who would need a definition intended to “split hairs.” So, I am assuming neither the worst nor an ideal. But, if I had too, I do not believe it is ever appropriate to assume the worst. Plan for the worst, but do not assume it.

So, again, why assume the worst?

And, BTW, is it bad to split hairs? Why or why not?

As earlier stated, you are perfectly entitled to split hairs, assume anything, etc. My assumptions are as good or as bad as yours.

In testing a system, the test parameters(ie, assumptions that determine the limits) are set at extreme conditions in order to arrive at the true performance of a system. Otherwise, your system cannot perform in actual field conditions. Test conditions should more or less represent the real world which is never ideal, I repeat, never ideal.

This is true in physics, more so in morality. I was offering a way out of this extended discussion on assumptions by implying that splitting hairs will not be the best approach. But since this thread insists, the choice is not mine.

Now back to suggestion to go “splitting hairs” and set a “guard rail”:

If the CC accedes to this thread’s taste and sets a “guard-rail”, say “inordinate pleasure” means allowing the use of self video of straight sex but set the limit at sado-masochism, this would delight those with yen for watching stratight sex on video but will alienate those who prefer sado-masochism. Then we will go back to the same discussion all over again for the next class of people.

And so on, ad nauseam.

Conclusion:
Setting a “guard rail” for the definition of ‘inordinate pleasure’ reduces the CC to the point of absurdity. The rule cannot resolve the inclinations arising from disordered heart’s desire. If the heart’s desire is in line with God’s will, one does not need the rule.

 

[CuriousInIL]

As earlier stated, you are perfectly entitled to split hairs, assume anything, etc. My assumptions are as good or as bad as yours.

In testing a system, the test parameters(ie, assumptions that determine the limits) are set at extreme conditions in order to arrive at the true performance of a system. Otherwise, your system cannot perform in actual field conditions. Test conditions should more or less represent the real world which is never ideal, I repeat, never ideal.

This is true in physics, more so in morality. I was offering a way out of this extended discussion on assumptions by implying that splitting hairs will not be the best approach. But since this thread insists, the choice is not mine.

Now back to suggestion to go “splitting hairs” and set a “guard rail”:

If the CC accedes to this thread’s taste and sets a “guard-rail”, say “inordinate pleasure” means allowing the use of self video of straight sex but set the limit at sado-masochism, this would delight those with yen for watching stratight sex on video but will alienate those who prefer sado-masochism. Then we will go back to the same discussion all over again for the next class of people.

And so on, ad nauseam.

Conclusion:
Setting a “guard rail” for the definition of ‘inordinate pleasure’ reduces the CC to the point of absurdity. The rule cannot resolve the inclinations arising from disordered heart’s desire. If the heart’s desire is in line with God’s will, one does not need the rule.

I have read your response several times and while I am sure that there is one or more points there, I must say I cannot discern even one that I understand that relates to this thread. I think at this point we are just talking around each other; so I will cease.

 

[distracted]

The point is that it is NOT sinful in and of itself (videotaping).

No one is harming the dignity of the other as it is private between only the two spouses and mutually agreed upon. (Pornography is sinful because it ignores the dignity of the actors involved)

No one here has given any valid arguement WHY this would be sinful.
Only arguements “assuming” that it is. By personal opinion.

I would personally not want to videotape my spouse and I.
But I see nothing “sinful” with another married couple who wishes to do so.
And neither do the apologists here.

 

[distracted]

distracted:
You don’t see anything wrong with it… but that doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That doesn’t really say anything… I have done many, many things in life that did not feel wrong before i did them, but afterwards, well, that was a different, sometimes VERY different, story…
I don’t think we should be approving of things that are questionable (or sometimes even things that are NOT often questionable…) and leading others to believe they are OK… when maybe they’re not. I believe the Church (priests, bishops) should be consulted. The person asking for advice in the first place about the rightness or wrongness of making the video should have gone to his priest…