Please explain the details for mortal sin.

[Scowler]

If you knew a little Aristotle or St. Thomas you would appreciate the difference between "cause" and "effect".

There is no need to refer to them in order to know the difference. Cause and effect are simple physical concepts.

----------------------

The argument against fornication is that it's an abuse of our reproductive faculties.

I would like to see a more detailed argument, if possible. How would non-marital sex be an abuse of the reproductive faculties? Marriage is not physically necessary for reproduction. And reproduction is not necessary for a marriage.

Nevertheless, I will wait for Daniel's answer, too. After all he said that pure reason is sufficient to show that fornication (sex outside or marriage) can be shown to be "mortally sinful" without any reference to revelation or religion. I can hardly wait.

[St.Justin]

If you knew a little Aristotle or St. Thomas you would appreciate the difference between "cause" and "effect".

There is no need to refer to them in order to know the difference. Cause and effect are simple physical concepts.

----------------------

[

So how did you learn about them and the rules that apply???

[Scowler]

So how did you learn about them and the rules that apply???

In the physics classes. Purpose is not applicable to simple physical processes. Every physical interaction is the exchange of some subatomic particles, which was unknown to Aristotle or Aquinas. We are way beyond stipulating "final causes". Moreover, I have no idea how this adds anything to the question of sins and mortal sins. Let's stick to the subject.

[St.Justin]

It is very important as it has to do with your ability to reason and your thought process. You seem to be lost is some abstract world where there exists no absolutes. Very difficult to argue from that prospective.

[Sojourn]

If you knew a little Aristotle or St. Thomas you would appreciate the difference between "cause" and "effect".

There is no need to refer to them in order to know the difference. Cause and effect are simple physical concepts.

----------------------

The argument against fornication is that it's an abuse of our reproductive faculties.

I would like to see a more detailed argument, if possible. How would non-marital sex be an abuse of the reproductive faculties? Marriage is not physically necessary for reproduction. And reproduction is not necessary for a marriage.

Nevertheless, I will wait for Daniel's answer, too. After all he said that pure reason is sufficient to show that fornication (sex outside or marriage) can be shown to be "mortally sinful" without any reference to revelation or religion. I can hardly wait.

Sex outside of marriage is usually contraceptive and without the intention of having children. Having sex in such a way is an abuse of the reproductive faculties for obvious reasons.

Sex in the Catholic and most worldviews is only to be enjoyed between a married couple. I've found this to be consistent teaching among hindu, buddhist, and stoic teaching. I'd venture to say it's virtually universal.

We accept the default position, let the liberal secularist in the West who departs from it defend their aberration

[Scowler]

Sex outside of marriage is usually contraceptive and without the intention of having children. Having sex in such a way is an abuse of the reproductive faculties for obvious reasons.

It is not obvious for me. Can you please elaborate based upon pure reason? The so-called reproductive organs have multiple uses, and all of them can be used independently from the others. Procreation can be practiced without marriage, and marriage can be quite fulfilling without children.

Sex in the Catholic and most worldviews is only to be enjoyed between a married couple. I've found this to be consistent teaching among hindu, buddhist, and stoic teaching. I'd venture to say it's virtually universal.

Not at all "universal". (And even if it were, that would only be a fallacy of "argumentum ad populum"). Just recall the elaborate teachings in the Kama Sutra, or the attitude toward sex in the other Oriental cultures. In their cultures sex was considered to be the best way to get close to the gods (plural), and it was practiced accordingly.

The concept of monogamy and the formal marriage are quite recent. It is obvious that sex sometimes results in conception. Considering the frequency of sex and pregnancy or conception are rather the exception than the rule. Since sex is very pleasant, and does not hurt anyone (as long it is consensual among all the participants - present or absent!) there does not seem to be any rational reason why not practice it whenever the affected parties desire it. Of course it is not just pleasant, but very useful both physiologically and mentally.

Just look at the higher apes - especially the bonobos - who practice it as a way to reduce anger, frustration and hostility. They really practice that wonderful concept of the 60's: "Make Love, Not War" So much more civilized to "love" others, rather than to "fight" them. Isn't love the fundamentally desired attitude of Christianity?

We accept the default position, let the liberal secularist in the West who departs from it defend their aberration

No one criticizes your position. I am simply curious about your reasoning concerning the "hostility" against the unmarried sexuality. Can you provide some detailed reasons for your side?

[Xavier]

does not hurt anyone (as long it is consensual among all the participants - present or absent!

Sophistry like this is why God willed to confirm the law - which He had already given men a natural awareness of through their conscience - by a written revelation. Men obfuscated what their intellects told them about natural law, because their wills loved sin once they had indulged in it. Take a habitual alcoholic compared to a doctor who has never been drunk. One of them is in a fit state to know right from wrong here - the other is not. So too habitual fornicators have the light of reason darkened and their awareness of right from wrong corrupted.

Adultery is wrong because it is infidelity to a current spouse. Fornication is equally wrong because it is infidelity against a future spouse. It is of the essence of marriage, made so by nature and nature's God, that one man and one woman give themselves wholly, exclusively and completely to each other. Any infidelity either before or after of either of the partners constitutes a sin against the union and against the Most High. Fornication is a terrible sin and leads gradully to terrible crimes including the crime of killing children.

[Daniel]

Nevertheless, I will wait for Daniel's answer, too. After all he said that pure reason is sufficient to show that fornication (sex outside or marriage) can be shown to be "mortally sinful" without any reference to revelation or religion. I can hardly wait.

Well, I'm not an expert, so hopefully I'm not butchering this too badly. But the argument goes roughly as follows (this is paraphrased from the Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Question 41, Article 1. And yes, it does rely on objective natures and final causes, but not on revelation):

- Children naturally receive three things from their parents: 1) existence, 2) nourishment, and 3) education. And not just from a single parent alone, but from both parents (more on that in the second argument, below). [This is not to say that a child cannot receive nourishment or education from somebody other than his parents. But by nature the child receives these things from his parents, just as he receives existence from his parents.]
- A child cannot receive nourishment and education from both of his parents unless both parents are present and are both cooperating with one another for this end.
- Therefore, both his parents must be present and must cooperate, and this mutual presence/cooperation is "marriage".

Second argument:
- The father alone cannot do all the tasks necessary in order to raise his children. There are certain tasks which are naturally the job of a woman, which men just aren't fit for. Likewise, the mother alone cannot do all the tasks necessary in order to raise her children. There are certain other tasks which are naturally the job of a man. [This is not to say that in every case it is physically impossible for the man do the woman's job or vice versa. But by nature there are certain tasks which are to be done by the man, and certain other tasks which are to be done by the woman, as evidenced by the fact that men and women have different body structures and different personalities and whatnot.]
- Even though neither the father or the mother alone are sufficient, the father and the mother together are sufficient.
- Therefore, the father and mother must be united for that end, and this union is "marriage".

From these arguments (especially the first one), it follows that the natural ends of sex (namely, the begetting and the raising of children) can only be achieved in the married state. The following two conclusions follow:
1.) Contraception is contrary to nature, because the child's very existence is impeded.
2.) Fornication (and adultery) are contrary to nature because the natural course by which the child receives his nourishment and his education is impeded.

[Miriam_M]

No one criticizes your position. I am simply curious about your reasoning concerning the "hostility" against the unmarried sexuality. Can you provide some detailed reasons for your side?

Unmarried sexual activity is what animals do.  They are of a lower status than man.  Men and women have obligations that animals do not, as the latter operates by instinct -- literally, programmed.  Mating is out of an animal's control; it is responding to the urgings of nature and even nature's cycles. Animals are incapable of complex intentionality and therefore are not responsible for their actions.

While we share urges along with animals, including the urge to reproduce and the urge to indulge our bodily pleasures, we are not only a mass of urges and pleasures, and we certainly are not those apart from an active, decision-making brain and a corresponding ability to refrain from indulgence.  So just because we can indulge in sex does not mean that we may, let alone should.

Our faculties and our actions with others are subject to a framework and a hierarchy of "Good."  We are responsible, by natural law and by God's Commandments (the verbalization of the eternal natural law), for the effect of our actions on others -- on the people with whom we engage in any kind of action, the people "against whom" and for whom we act, etc.  (And that works in the positive direction as well.)

I'd continue, but I have to go to work soon.

[Sojourn]

Sex outside of marriage is usually contraceptive and without the intention of having children. Having sex in such a way is an abuse of the reproductive faculties for obvious reasons.

It is not obvious for me. Can you please elaborate based upon pure reason? The so-called reproductive organs have multiple uses, and all of them can be used independently from the others. Procreation can be practiced without marriage, and marriage can be quite fulfilling without children.

Sex in the Catholic and most worldviews is only to be enjoyed between a married couple. I've found this to be consistent teaching among hindu, buddhist, and stoic teaching. I'd venture to say it's virtually universal.

Not at all "universal". (And even if it were, that would only be a fallacy of "argumentum ad populum"). Just recall the elaborate teachings in the Kama Sutra, or the attitude toward sex in the other Oriental cultures. In their cultures sex was considered to be the best way to get close to the gods (plural), and it was practiced accordingly.

The concept of monogamy and the formal marriage are quite recent. It is obvious that sex sometimes results in conception. Considering the frequency of sex and pregnancy or conception are rather the exception than the rule. Since sex is very pleasant, and does not hurt anyone (as long it is consensual among all the participants - present or absent!) there does not seem to be any rational reason why not practice it whenever the affected parties desire it. Of course it is not just pleasant, but very useful both physiologically and mentally.

Just look at the higher apes - especially the bonobos - who practice it as a way to reduce anger, frustration and hostility. They really practice that wonderful concept of the 60's: "Make Love, Not War" So much more civilized to "love" others, rather than to "fight" them. Isn't love the fundamentally desired attitude of Christianity?

We accept the default position, let the liberal secularist in the West who departs from it defend their aberration

No one criticizes your position. I am simply curious about your reasoning concerning the "hostility" against the unmarried sexuality. Can you provide some detailed reasons for your side?

You remind me of the fact how different we are. I have more in common with a Hindu or Tibetan Buddhist than a secular liberal. I still remember my University days on how despite a colleague being Buddhist. Hindu, or African Shaman, we agreed on what proper living is. Fornication,adultery, homosexuality, were all obvious sins needing no explanation.  Only the contemporary Westerner, so lost, is in need of explanation for basic things.

If you want to understand then study the nature of a thing. There is no divorcing a reproductive component from a healthy sexual act. At the hight of oegasm a man releases life generating cells. Sex therefore has a reproductive function by its nature. This is why contraceptives are used, the "contra" being against the natural design of our reproductive organs, and what is against the natural order is against God.

Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists (the traditional variety and not the Americanized aberations), Greek Stoics, daoists, all recognized this natural order which is why despite differences in theology the main moral questions had the same answers. I know very well licentious Westerners are interested in esoteric Hindu texts on sex being spiritual, but Hinduism promotes a very conservative family oriented life style, the part that liberals look over.

I mention the universality of Catholic morality because it is shared on the basis of natural law. All people's living according to higher principles recognize. The secularist who takes himself to be god and has therefore lost his mind, struggles with even the most basic concepts. I would nothink recommend your approach to this being academic, you will not be able to.understand, if you want to see what we see you must practice. Stop.masturbating, stop fornicating, cut out porn, and start meditating and mental prayer. Try that for several weeks, tame your passions, free your mind, exercise your will, and you will see what we all see.

[St.Justin]

As I said before you can't reason with a person who doesn't understand norms and absolutes. That  is why Jehovah witnesses don't like philosophy. They think reasoning is the devils work.

[Scowler]

Fornication is equally wrong because it is infidelity against a future spouse.

How can one practice infidelity toward someone who does not even exist, and may not ever exist?

It is of the essence of marriage, made so by nature and nature's God, that one man and one woman give themselves wholly, exclusively and completely to each other.

"Nature" does nothing of this kind. Some species mate for life, others do not. Some species practice monogamy, others do not. "Nature" exhibits a wonderful variety in everything, procreation included.

-------------------------

Well, I'm not an expert, so hopefully I'm not butchering this too badly. But the argument goes roughly as follows (this is paraphrased from the Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Question 41, Article 1. And yes, it does rely on objective natures and final causes, but not on revelation):

Thank you for returning to the subject, and especially to refer back to "final causes". The point is that actions do not have necessarily just ONE final cause - if one uses that strange terminology. Let's take something very mundane: "using your leg muscles" instead of "using your reproductive / excretory organs". This activity can have several "final" causes... one may
(1) wish to get from point "A" to point "B", or
(2) wishes to get around the track as fast as one can (competitive running in track and field), or
(3) simply wishes to have a leisurely stroll to enjoy the scenery, or
(4) puts in some exercise to be strengthen the leg muscles, or many other activities. The most unnatural one is
(5) "dancing", and yet no one would declare it as "immoral"... oops! I am mistaken. Southern Baptists do . It all depends one wishes to achieve, and to single out one of them as "moral" and the rest as "immoral" simply does not make any sense.

The problem in your analysis is that it only concentrates of ONE "final" cause for sex: procreation, and considers all the other possible aspects as... well... secondary? Or improper? Immoral? That needs to be substantiated on a fully rational ground, and I see no way to achieve that. Of course the analysis is not very deep even in that one respect. An extended family (uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.) - beyond the parents - is obviously preferable, providing better care for the children. You might even subscribe to the "model" described by Hillary Clinton: "it takes a village". A larger sample of caring people, whether being blood-relatives or not is obviously better than a smaller one. If some of the larger community die, there are still others to care for the children.

Remember, that Catholicism also considers the "unitive" aspect as necessary and proper. For people over the reproductive age the "procreative" aspect is null and void, but the unitive aspect is alive and well. So the concept of "ONE" final cause being the reproductive one is not endorsed by Catholicism.

And, of course there is the assumption that every instance of sexual activity should be directed toward procreation. How can you substantiate that on fully rational ground? I cannot imagine. By the way, you use the word "marriage" in a loose fashion. It seems like that you consider every monogamous relationship to be a marriage, whether formally consecrated or an informal civil union.

From these arguments (especially the first one), it follows that the natural ends of sex (namely, the begetting and the raising of children) can only be achieved in the married state. The following two conclusions follow:
1.) Contraception is contrary to nature, because the child's very existence is impeded.
2.) Fornication (and adultery) are contrary to nature because the natural course by which the child receives his nourishment and his education is impeded.

Who says that the very existence of every child is a desirable outcome?

The basic problem with your argument (so far) is the unwarranted assumption that every instance of sexual activity should be open to procreation. Can you bring up some fully rational arguments for this?

Thank you again for the conversation. I am looking forward to see the next "installment".

[St.Justin]

Scowler, You are arguing about a subject which you have no understanding.

"Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal,[1] existing independently of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was first documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. It was then alluded to in the Bible, from which it was subsequently developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. In the Renaissance, notably the School of Salamanca further contributed. During the Age of Enlightenment, modern era natural law theories were further developed, combining inspiration from Roman law, and alongside philosophies like social contract theory. It featured greatly in the works of Alberico Gentili, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Matthew Hale, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, Emmerich de Vattel, Cesare Beccaria and Francesco Mario Pagano. It was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights—in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments."

You seem to think "natural law" refers to what occurs in nature.

[Scowler]

Scowler, You are arguing about a subject which you have no understanding.

<snip>
Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments."

You seem to think "natural law" refers to what occurs in nature.

Well, no. I don't think so at all. The "laws of nature" are not "laws" at all, they are descriptive, not proscriptive "rules" we have discovered. The phrase "natural law" is a short form for "natural MORAL law". Which means that there are (allegedly!) some obvious behavioral standards, which are universal, and which should be observed (respected) by every rational person in every possible society. And that is the problem. Different societies have different behavioral "norms", and those "norms" also change with time in the same society.

In the biblical times "indentured slavery" was a perfectly acceptable concept, along with the stronger form of slavery, when the "vae victis" mentality was prevalent. Today both of them are "frowned upon". Corporal punishment was endorsed in the Bible ("do not spare the rod"), but today we know better. The negative reinforcement (beating) is vastly inferior to the positive reinforcement - which was an unknown idea in the (primitive) times of the Bible. No one was aware of the branch of mathematics, called "game theory", which deals with conflict resolution, or proper behavior in different scenarios. By the way, one of the strongest objections against the divine origin of the Bible is the lack of well-established behavioral patterns (turn the other cheek???) in our lives.

And there is another problem. A "law" is not a "law" without being enforced. Otherwise it is just a "suggestion" - at best. The "laws of nature" are enforced by nature. (You cannot "flout" the law of gravity, and step off a building. Gravity will "punish" you.) Some of the "natural laws" are elevated into real laws, they are codified into legal system, and enforced as well as we can. But we are not talking about legal systems, are we? The words in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."

make up a beautiful, but incredibly naïve expression. It would be very nice if there were such rights, and if they were enforced by God (for example), but this is just a "pie in the sky", a chimera or wishful thinking. Without enforcement there are no rights, without rights there are no laws. Much as I would prefer to be otherwise, but our "wishes" have no impact on reality.

(So maybe I know what I am talking about. )

[St.Justin]

Scowler, You are arguing about a subject which you have no understanding.

(So maybe I know what I am talking about. )

Don't think so as is evident from your post. For example a law is in fact a law even if not enforced. It maybe ineffective but it is still a law. I think you need to learn some principles before you argue.