Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be raped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter safa92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not relativism. Catholicism acknowledges that the culpability of an already inmoral act can vary with the circumstances, while the act itself is wrong/sin.

Relativism is when you claim that the “validity”/righteousness/morality of the act itself can vary, depending on the circumstances.

Also, unlike a relativist, we belive that certain acts are “intrinsically evil”; in such cases there is always some culpability, regardless of the circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I think you make a good point. However, I do still worry about natural law and how its literal interpretation can be potentially dangerous. Many years ago, I was hearing about natural law from a man I knew reasonably well. He was, in no particular order, a theology graduate, a headmaster, gay, and a very devout Catholic. He told me in all seriousness that masturbation is a worse sin than rape, since rape is not actually contrary to nature, whereas masturbation apparently is. I feel that somewhere along the way, he must have lost sight of the bigger picture.
 
He isn’t 100% wrong… In regards to marital act and sins of lust, acts against nature are the worst kind. Masturbation is one of them. Bestiality is the worst of all. By contrast, when a man rapes a woman, the act itself is less sinful, for it isn’t against its nature. Notice I am talking about the act, not the circumstances.

On the other hand, I agree with your bigger picture point. I guess you are contrary to his position because when someone is raped, there is also sin against justice. And this is the aspect you probably would like him to consider and probably weight more.
 
Well, I am thinking that with rape there is a victim, a victim who will probably suffer for the rest of his or her life as a result of the rape. With masturbation, there is no victim. Thus, in England, for example, rape is a crime punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment, placing it in the second most serious category of crimes after murder and a few crimes like treason and piracy that don’t actually occur very often. Masturbation is not a crime.
 
So. You are looking from the point of view of Justice and your position sure is according to reason.

Yet, what the man you mentioned said could also be true as long as he was speaking from the point of view of sins of lust. In this case, the object analysed is the venereal act, not the circumstances (whether it victimizes others, for instance). From this perspective, any act against the very nature of the venereal act is worse than the one done for distorted ends.
 
Freddy said:
Again, that is relativism. Any immoral act is relative to the conditions that pertain to that act. The conditions do not absolve the act even if culpability is likewise relative to moral norms at that time.
Click to expand...
When we talk of culpability we refer to an individual person - the extent to which they are personally accountable - for an act. The morality or justness of the act is not being discussed. The morality of an act is not altered one iota in this discussion. The factors which bear on culpability have no bearing on morality. “Relativism” is a claim that morality itself is relative.
 
Last edited:
EmilyAlexandra said:
He told me in all seriousness that masturbation is a worse sin than rape, since rape is not actually contrary to nature, whereas masturbation apparently is. I feel that somewhere along the way, he must have lost sight of the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
Well, he certainly compared the acts from a very narrow viewpoint, meaning his analysis omits other factors, such as the abandonment of love of neighbour inherent in rape.
Aulef said:
He isn’t 100% wrong… In regards to marital act and sins of lust, acts against nature are the worst kind. Masturbation is one of them. Bestiality is the worst of all. By contrast, when a man rapes a woman, the act itself is less sinful, for it isn’t against its nature.
Click to expand...
I hope you are beginning to see the inadequacy of your analysis.
 
Last edited:
Aulef said:
Not my analysis. I am simply reproducing Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
Do you see the inadequacy of considering only the one factor? Do you see how the abandonment of the great commandment to love one’s neighbor cannot be omitted from the analysis?
 
I never considered only one factor…

You should read again my messages and pay more attention. And if you still have trouble, I can highlight for you.
 
Aulef said:
I never considered only one factor
Click to expand...
Could you point out all the factors considered in your post when comparing rape with masturbation. Did your post consider the abandonment of “love thy neighbor”?
Aulef said:
He isn’t 100% wrong… In regards to marital act and sins of lust, acts against nature are the worst kind. Masturbation is one of them. Bestiality is the worst of all. By contrast, when a man rapes a woman, the act itself is less sinful, for it isn’t against its nature.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
40.png
Freddy:
Again, that is relativism. Any immoral act is relative to the conditions that pertain to that act. The conditions do not absolve the act even if culpability is likewise relative to moral norms at that time.
Click to expand...
It really isn’t relativism. If it were, then the morality of the act would depend on the circumstances. It doesn’t. However, culpability can be increased or diminished by virtue of the circumstances.
Click to expand...
So it was morally wrong then but acceptable considering the time and place. Beats me how they’d know it was immoral if everyone thought it was fine - including God. I guess we can only decide that in retrospect…
 
AlbMagno said:
Also, unlike a relativist, we belive that certain acts are “intrinsically evil”; in such cases there is always some culpability, regardless of the circumstances.
Click to expand...
As we’re already working on the assumption that God commanded a massacre then perhaps you can comment of the morality of the act and the culpability of those involved.
 
Aulef said:
Maybe the Bible gives us a hint.

The first time God wiped out a civilization, He did because everyone had ONLY evil intentions in their hearts. Not one good. Sodom and Gomorra were probably on the same level of evilness.
Click to expand...
Including children? Infants? Babies? Those in the womb?
Aulef said:
In regards to marital act and sins of lust, acts against nature are the worst kind. Masturbation is one of them… By contrast, when a man rapes a woman, the act itself is less sinful, for it isn’t against its nature.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly the most thoughtless comment I’ve read on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Weren’t Sodom and Gomora destroyed by a meteor burst? An act of God yes, but also a natural disaster like a flood or earthquake. Does that help?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Are you suggesting natural disasters befall the wicked 🤔
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you’ve gotten that from what I’ve posted. But anyway, no, I’m not suggesting that.
Freddy said:
The bible skipped that bit.
Click to expand...
The story doesn’t use scientific jargon like the words “airburst” or “meteor” but it does describe an event similar to those terms.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top