Is friends with benefits the moral alternative?


#1

in the midle ages the catholic church tolerated prostitution because they thought it was a good alternative to stop people from committing greater sins such as masterbation, adultery, and sodomy.

so it is worth considering, would it be the morally responsible thing to do to have a certain someone you could have sex with until marriage? just to keep from committing more grevious sins?
p.s. i realise the real morally responsible thing to do would be to not have sex at al untill marriage, but many of us find this very difficult to do. so basically wouldnt it be better to have sex with a person (using NFP ofcourse), to stave off masterbation and pornography?


#2

Got a source for this?

so basically wouldnt it be better to have sex with a person (using NFP ofcourse), to stave off masterbation and pornography?

Replacing one grave sin with another grave sin is not the way to overcome a sin. At the end of the day you are still committing a grave sin.

If you are confused about why the Church teaches that these actions are sinful, it would be helpful to read this:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM


#3

[quote="someperson555, post:1, topic:305030"]
in the midle ages the catholic church tolerated prostitution because they thought it was a good alternative to stop people from committing greater sins such as masterbation, adultery, and sodomy.

so it is worth considering, would it be the morally responsible thing to do to have a certain someone you could have sex with until marriage? just to keep from committing more grevious sins?
p.s. i realise the real morally responsible thing to do would be to not have sex at al untill marriage, but many of us find this very difficult to do. so basically wouldnt it be better to have sex with a person (using NFP ofcourse), to stave off masterbation and pornography?

[/quote]

I have never heard of this.


#4

No. It is morally wrong to commit a sin in order to “evade” doing another.

Try setting up accountability with another person you can trust. Remove all things (that you can) that cause you temptation. You will find yourself tempted still, so, when you are, say “Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner”. Keep saying it until you are no longer tempted, and say it louder if you don’t “feel” the temptations going away.

Here is a good site: chastity.com

I will be praying for you,
Timothy Garber


#5

[quote="marty1818, post:2, topic:305030"]
Got a source for this?
]

[/quote]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#Middle_Ages

"During the Middle Ages, prostitution was commonly found in urban contexts. Although all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage were regarded as sinful by the Roman Catholic Church, prostitution was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation (McCall, 1979). Augustine of Hippo held that: "If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts". The general tolerance of prostitution was for the most part reluctant, and many canonists urged prostitutes to reform."

[quote="marty1818, post:2, topic:305030"]
Replacing one grave sin with another grave sin is not the way to overcome a sin. At the end of the day you are still committing a grave sin.

[/quote]

that is true. but in the case ofa person who is addicted to the vice of masterbation for example, it would be less morally harmful for him/ her if he/she would find someone to have sex with instead. since fornication is less immoral than masterbation. since fornication is more correctly ordered.

[quote="marty1818, post:2, topic:305030"]
If you are confused about why the Church teaches that these actions are sinful, it would be helpful to read this:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

[/quote]

no need. i agree with you that both of these are mortal sins. im just curious if in extreme cases of addiction to lust if it woul dbe moving in the right direction at least to fornicate instead of masterbate.


#6

Why would fornication be better than masturbation? :confused:

I wouldn’t take a citation on Wikipedia as evidence that the Church ever condoned prostitution.


#7

[quote="Joe_5859, post:6, topic:305030"]
Why would fornication be better than masturbation? :confused:

I wouldn't take a citation on Wikipedia as evidence that the Church ever condoned prostitution.

[/quote]

fornication is less sinful than masterbation. thats not me saying that. i got it from thomas aquinas , and i believe those views of his are still valid. and after all, if you study it in greater depth youll find that he wa sright. fornication is more close to the order that God originally intended, whereas masterbation is farther away from the natural sex act. theerfore i think if you were to put the sins of lust in a heirarchy, it would go something like this (from least sinful to most sinful)
fornication (using NFP)
contraception
masterbation
rape
adultery
sodomy

im not sure if everyone of those vices are in their correct category, but i think that thomas aquinas held masterbation to be more sinful. he called it a "special vice"


#8

That would be choosing to commit one grave sin in place of another grave sin. How is that at all helpful?

By the way, where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church “tolerated” prostitution as a good alternative to greater sin during the Middle Ages? All the sins you listed are grave sins and the Church is not tolerant of any sin, so the entire statement is suspect.


#9

[quote="someperson555, post:7, topic:305030"]
fornication is less sinful than masterbation. ...
...
fornication (using NFP)
contraception
masterbation
rape
adultery
sodomy

im not sure if everyone of those vices are in their correct category, but i think that thomas aquinas held masterbation to be more sinful. he called it a "special vice"

[/quote]

All the sins listed above are grave sins. All. It is the teaching of the Church that one should strive to avoid all sins, and especially all grave sins. Period.


#10

[quote="someperson555, post:7, topic:305030"]
fornication is less sinful than masterbation. thats not me saying that. i got it from thomas aquinas , and i believe those views of his are still valid. and after all, if you study it in greater depth youll find that he wa sright. fornication is more close to the order that God originally intended, whereas masterbation is farther away from the natural sex act. theerfore i think if you were to put the sins of lust in a heirarchy, it would go something like this (from least sinful to most sinful)
fornication (using NFP)
contraception
masterbation
rape
adultery
sodomy

im not sure if everyone of those vices are in their correct category, but i think that thomas aquinas held masterbation to be more sinful. he called it a "special vice"

[/quote]

You are making it sound like their are only two options: having nonmarital sex or masturbation. You need to realize that there are other options.

What my answer boils down to: Find a way to do no sin on purpose.


#11

[quote="someperson555, post:7, topic:305030"]
fornication is less sinful than masterbation. thats not me saying that. i got it from thomas aquinas , and i believe those views of his are still valid. and after all, if you study it in greater depth youll find that he wa sright. fornication is more close to the order that God originally intended, whereas masterbation is farther away from the natural sex act. theerfore i think if you were to put the sins of lust in a heirarchy, it would go something like this (from least sinful to most sinful)
fornication (using NFP)
contraception
masterbation
rape
adultery
sodomy

im not sure if everyone of those vices are in their correct category, but i think that thomas aquinas held masterbation to be more sinful. he called it a "special vice"

[/quote]

Then you can easily point us to the relevant portion of the Summa for us to review this ranking system ourselves.


#12

[quote="someperson555, post:7, topic:305030"]
fornication is less sinful than masterbation. thats not me saying that. i got it from thomas aquinas

[/quote]

Can you cite your source?


#13

[quote="someperson555, post:5, topic:305030"]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#Middle_Ages

"During the Middle Ages, prostitution was commonly found in urban contexts. Although all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage were regarded as sinful by the Roman Catholic Church, prostitution was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation (McCall, 1979). Augustine of Hippo held that: "If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts". The general tolerance of prostitution was for the most part reluctant, and many canonists urged prostitutes to reform."

that is true. but in the case ofa person who is addicted to the vice of masterbation for example, it would be less morally harmful for him/ her if he/she would find someone to have sex with instead. since fornication is less immoral than masterbation. since fornication is more correctly ordered.

no need. i agree with you that both of these are mortal sins. im just curious if in extreme cases of addiction to lust if it woul dbe moving in the right direction at least to fornicate instead of masterbate.

[/quote]

I suggest you find a better source of information. The page you referenced was last edited on October 31, 2012, by some random person. Wiki is not a good reference to find facts.


#14

[quote="Timothy_Garber, post:10, topic:305030"]
You are making it sound like their are only two options: having nonmarital sex or masturbation. You need to realize that there are other options.

What my answer boils down to: Find a way to do no sin on purpose.

[/quote]

and as i said i AGREE with you. im just making theological conversation lol.

for example, a person who is having sexual relations with his girlfriend finds out that he is in mortal sin. he should try to stop, but all im saying is that maybe he shouldnt cut off contact with his girlfriend lest he fall into the sins of masterbation and pornography. at least with his girlfriend theres a chance that they will get married and then they will not be committing fornication anymore.

i am NOT saying fornication is ok. it is a mortal sin, yes. im just saying its better than masterbation. :shrug:


#15

No. Just...no. :tsktsk: Why would you even think that finding some special person to have sex with UNTIL marriage would be acceptable? Premarital sex is a sin. Period.


#16

[quote="Delaine75, post:15, topic:305030"]
No. Just...no. :tsktsk: Why would you even think that finding some special person to have sex with UNTIL marriage would be acceptable? Premarital sex is a sin. Period.

[/quote]

lol :)
you missed the point of my thread.


#17

"Do you think I could commit one grave, mortal sin, in order to avoid committing another grave, mortal sin? That would be better, right?"

:slapfight:

NO!


#18

[quote="someperson555, post:1, topic:305030"]
in the midle ages the catholic church tolerated prostitution because they thought it was a good alternative to stop people from committing greater sins such as masterbation, adultery, and sodomy.

so it is worth considering, would it be the morally responsible thing to do to have a certain someone you could have sex with until marriage? just to keep from committing more grevious sins?
p.s. i realise the real morally responsible thing to do would be to not have sex at al untill marriage, but many of us find this very difficult to do. so basically wouldnt it be better to have sex with a person (using NFP ofcourse), to stave off masterbation and pornography?

[/quote]

I smell balogny.:D

Chastity builds the character necessary for life long marriage. Learning that you can live through long periods of time with out sex, is integral to sexual self conrol. It develops in you the ability to put the welfare of others, your wife/husband and kids, ahead of your own selfish desires.

What you suggest above is just practicing weakness, and sin over & over again. It only makes one more weak. Then if that person finds someone they truely love, and marry them, they are doomed to failure. When they are tempted by someone younger, more beautiful, with money, flashy car.......they will cave, their spouse finds out, and boom they end up divorced. They hurt most those they wanted to love and cherish! Living a lustful life renders people **incapable of true **love which is exclusive.

My husband & I chose to have a chaste courtship. 27 years later, I still save all of my sexual expression for him. I can't imagine being intimate with anyone else. He is everything to me.

Hanging on to sin, is like clinging to bobwire that is chained to a monster truck going 60 mph. It will shred you!


#19

Just because at one time the Church permitted a sin (one which even the article says they didn't approve of and still considered sinful) doesn't mean it was right, or ever official teaching. The Church's logic has developed and become much more sound since then.


#20

[quote="marty1818, post:12, topic:305030"]
Can you cite your source?

[/quote]

gladly,

"With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust."

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article12


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.