|
2 members (melkman2, 1 invisible),
150
guests, and
20
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ebed melech:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by John K:
[qb]
That being said, I think the first situations you mentioned are sad and all too common. As far as your other cousins, it is a difficult call. My wife has a distant cousin who is gay and adopted a young Chinese boy with his partner (who eventually left him). When they were together, it was difficult as a father to address the issue with my kids and I was concerned about appearing to endorse something immoral (on two levels - the relationship and the adoption) for their sake and for his.
I am glad your wife's cousin's adoptive son had someone who was raising him with love and care.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
It's a big, strange world - so I'm sure that if we all look hard enough and carefully enough, we can find someone who would vastly enjoy being flogged with a rubber chicken.
On the other hand, considering some rubber chicken that I've been served in places like comfort stops on the PA turnpike - to say nothing of church dinners - I think I would prefer to be excused from this activity.
Now a rubber duck, on the other hand . . .
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Wan't the rubber chicken the missing clue in the DaVinci Code?  Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by ebed melech:
[QUOTE]In that regard, someone told me once that St. Thomas Aquinas saw masturbation as having more sinful gravity than fornication (I do not think he said adultery), since it is less in keeping with the natural use of our sexual faculties which are meant for the union of a male and a female and not for self-gratification. Certainly that is a point which is somewhat debatable given the added dimension of causing another to cooperate in an evil, but I have no desire to descend any further into casuistry in this thread!
He actually specifically stated that masturbation was a worse sin than rape and incest, for the reasons you stated above. This is probably a good example of how overphilosophizing can trump good old-fashioned common sense. All you have to do is ask yourself - if you somehow found out some low-life was considering raping your daughter, but changed his mind after masturbating instead, would you breathe a deep sigh of relief, or would you scold him for committing a worse sin? I think (well, I hope!) that most of us would agree that rape is ALWAYS a worse sin than masturbation. As for incest, I will go out on a limb and say that I think that is also worse than masturbation. And that it's fortunate that we're not required to accept St. Thomas's opinions as infallible. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Theist Gal: He actually specifically stated that masturbation was a worse sin than rape and incest, for the reasons you stated above. This is probably a good example of how overphilosophizing can trump good old-fashioned common sense...And that it's fortunate that we're not required to accept St. Thomas's opinions as infallible. I would actually like to see a link to a credible translation of that passage that specifically says "rape and incest" and not "fornication". For anyone who has read St. Thomas, such a charge seems very much out of character for the "angelic doctor". I'm also curious about the specific Latin terms. Would you be willing to provide a link? And yes - it is true we are not required to accept his opinions as infallible. He does offer many insights though, often rooted in patristic teaching, and I am especially fond of his exegetical works. I would not say I am a regular reader of STA by any stretch, but that translation you offer seems far fetched. Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by ebed melech:
[QUOTE]I would actually like to see a link to a credible translation of that passage that specifically says "rape and incest" and not "fornication". For anyone who has read St. Thomas, such a charge seems very much out of character for the "angelic doctor". I'm also curious about the specific Latin terms. Would you be willing to provide a link?
Would you consider the New Advent Encyclopedia translation to be credible? Here's a link: http://newadvent.org/summa/315412.htm and here are a couple of passages speaking to the matter at hand (so to speak ): Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin among the species of lust. For the more a sin is contrary to charity the graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which are injurious to our neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore the unnatural sin is not the greatest among the species of lust.
I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (09), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Theist Gal: Would you consider the New Advent Encyclopedia translation to be credible? Here's a link:
http://newadvent.org/summa/315412.htm
and here are a couple of passages speaking to the matter at hand (so to speak ):You are bad! Yes - I would definitely regard New Advent as credible. I also went to a couple of Fordham sites on Aquinas on Sex and Unnatural Sex, just to clarify what he means by unnatural. Very clearly he puts homosexuality, bestiality and masturbation in that category of unnatural, which, coupled with the passages you listed, I suppose would lead one to the conclusion that STA saw masturbation as worse than rape and incest. It is more than a bit "shocking" since it seems so out of character for him...to me this reveals one of the flaws of his systematization. I think he should have given more credence to Objective 1 regarding charity and the harm to a neighbor. Perhaps I'll just stick reading his exegetical works while dining on that healthy portion of Japanese hibatchi-grilled crow I've been enjoying for two weeks or so! Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
