Is it… a sin

?

Questions and answers for the young

Fr. Amando Llorente Villa, SJ

Is it a sin?

Questions and answers for the young

First English Edition

SERIES C ~ MORALS PAMPHLET No. 5

AGRUPACION CATOLICA UNIVERSITARIA MIAMI FL

Is it a Sin? There is no priest that sits in the confessional for a time, much less one dedicated to guidance and education of youth, who has not heard questions like these a million times:

Is it a sin to kiss a girl? Is it a sin to watch a movie with risqué scenes? Does the Church allow boyfriends and girlfriends any liberties?

And a thousand others just like them. Young boys and girls hope for and sometimes demand instant answers, resolute, conclusive, and once and for all. They know little about he number of factors that have to be taken into account before before settling on a definitive answer, assuming a definitive answer is possible. This simple pamphlet is intended to help the young with these concerns. We do not attempt to exhaust inexhaustible material, much less replace confessor or mentor who, having specific knowledge of each particular case, is ultimately the one who has to judge on the case. We are addressing young people with a conscience that is normal, upstanding, calm, not scrupulous, and much less obsessed by dread, fear or phobia associated with sexual sin; for the latter, in practice, analysis of these acts is impossible.Although we are targeting single

~ ~3

young men and women, the doctrine also applies to married couples in matters unrelated to ones spouse, understanding that to the sin of the bachelor, the married man would have to add on adultery. This pamphlet continues the series already published by the B.I.P. on this subject, namely: “The Big Question” addressed the problem of the possibility of chastity. “The Philosophy of Sex” explained the reasonableness of chastity. “The Magic Word” answered the question of how to be chaste. We now want to clarify something about the “Morality of Chastity” or about what sin is when it comes to chastity. And without further delay, let’s get into the subject.

Grave matters

Let’s begin by making clear a cardinal principle:

“There is no scarcity of material when it comes to the sixth commandment.”

So say all treatises on morality. What does this mean? It means the following: offenses against chastity are always a grave matter. There are no degrees of severity regarding the subject. Full fornication is, after all, a grave sin; but so is simple touching of bodies if done with intent of inciting sexual appetite.

Why such moral severity in the case of chastity? Because offenses against chastity threaten a precious treasure, a most noble and holy faculty that God has given man. And, because in matters of chastity the “middle ground” is very slippery:

~ ~4

Once the sexual mechanism is activated, it is very difficult to contain. You launch yourself down a chute and halfway down they shout: stop! Could you stop…?

That is why morality keeps your eye focused on beginnings. And everything that begins with a grave action is likewise grave.

But we also understand the proposition well: we are not trying to say, in any way, that everything related to sex could be sinful. In the matter of chastity, as with everything, for there to be a grave sin, three conditions must be met:

GRAVE MATTER FULL WARNING COMPLETE CONSENT

Without these three conditions there can not be grave sin.

In order to better understand this doctrine, let’s refer to another sin, say, theft. In the case of robbery, each of the three factors might vary. Let’s take a look at them:

1. I may keep someone else’s money out of forgetfulness; I withdrew money from an account, put it in my pocket, and forgot to give it to its owner.

There is no sin, due to lack of warning. I was not advised that I was committing a wrongful act.

~ ~5

2. Let’s suppose that I have someone else’s money in my pocket and I intend to take it to its owner. A day here, a day there, I keep postponing the delivery to “tomorrow,” and time goes by. Let’s say years pass, to the point that I can no longer return it because the owner died and has left no heirs. Even then, there has not been true sin, because the third condition of consent is missing. (I am positing here that my intentions of returning the money were sincere). 3. Finally, the first condition: matter. In the case of theft, there are grave matters and there are minor matters. If I steal a quarter from a millionaire it could never be a grave sin because the matter is minor (it is a question of quantity), even though I did it with full warning and total consent.

So, when it comest to chastity, always treat it as “a million dollars.”

In the matter of chastity, we cannot steal a “quarter” or a “dime.” It is either stealing or not. But if there is stealing, it is always theft of a million dollars.

That is why we don’t ever have to analyze the matter when it comes to sins against the sixth commandment. The matter is always grave. The judgment is always “embezzlement” of a heavy sum. On the other hand, what is of tremendous importance is the relationship of the incident with the other two factors: warning and consent.If I commit an impure act while I am sleeping, or in a semi-unconscious state, it could not have been a grave sin because of lack of warning.

~ ~6

If an impure thought strikes, against my wishes, it could not have been a grave sin because of lack of consent. Hence, in matters of chastity we can simplify the three-fold formula that characterizes mortal sins, suppressing the first (severity of the matter) because that always exists. Let’s focus, then, all of our attention now on the other two characteristics: warning and consent. The formula stated, then, is very simple. Every time we engage in an act against purity, we only have to ask ourselves: Did I do it with full warning? Did I consent?

This seems so simple, yet is not when we try to analyze particular cases. It is very common for there to be serious questions as to whether or not there was consent; that is, if the thing arose inadvertently or, on the contrary, if I knew what was going to happen or what could happen. We dedicate the following pages to helping you with such a delicate and important problem. I. Direct Sexual Acts:

Warned Grave Matter……… Sin

Consented II. Indirect Sexual Acts: Reading, conversations, kisses, etc.)

a) With impure intention …… Sin Danger Near

b) Without impure intention …… Remote Sufficient Sufficient Insufficient

~ ~7

Direct sexual acts Now, above all, we must examine the act itself. If I want to know whether an action I have taken is sinful or not, let us first analyze that action. What is its nature? We all know that there are direct sexual acts and others that, although they may incite the sexual appetite, are not.

Direct sexual acts are those that due to their nature are solely and exclusively oriented to satisfy sexual appetite.

Sexual acts themselves, whether done with people of the opposite or the same sex, or on oneself, are always direct sexual acts. As are also, naturally, caresses, touches, contacts that, though they may not be complete sexual acts, if headed toward and strongly predisposed to them. Intentions, justifications and motives are not valid in these cases: the girlfriend who consents to illicit intimacies and wants to justify them by saying that she tolerates them so as “not to lose her boyfriend’s love”; the young boy who does them or tries them with his girlfriend “to get to know her better,” or “to demonstrate his love…” Those are all grave sins, offenses without justification. (Not to mention, for this is not the place, the grave consequences that such intimacies could have on the future of the marriage).

All direct sexual act contradicts the law of God and constitutes grave sin of impurity.

~ ~8

Indirect sexual acts An incalculable number of acts are capable of stimulating sexual desire, but also serve a purpose completely unrelated to sexuality. Dancing, for instance, is not in itself a direct sexual act. By itself, dancing is social entertainment… although, clearly, modern dancing is also a sexual stimulant of the first order. The reading of certain chapters in physiology or anatomy has, evidently, a purpose superior to sexuality. But it could also be an erotic stimulant. Conversation is a sublime gift of the human species through which individuals exchange joys of the spirit called ideas. But ideas can also be a dark shade of gray. A kiss can be an expression of love of the purest form; but it can also be a strong erotic excitant. A sugar mill is a factory destined for sugar production. As a result of the process to which sugarcane is submitted, other things are also produced: bagasse, for example, used afterward to manufacture cellulose, is a product not sought directly; it is a secondary consequence of the industrial process. That is why it is called a byproduct.

Indirect sexual acts are those destined by their nature to other, more elevated purposes. Sexual passion results as a byproduct of the process. (Be advised that on numerous occasions it is the byproduct directly sought or desired in dancing, or in reading or in conversation. But, by themselves, these acts are not undertaken to promote sexual passion.)

~ ~9

And now comes the question: Are those indirect sexual acts sinful or not?

Answer: it depends. You have to remember that this is not about wrongful acts themselves. They can put you in danger of sin but they are not themselves sin. Can you do them, then? Answer this question yourself:

Can I dance, kiss, read or watch certain movies, without putting myself in danger of violating chastity?

If it is true that they do not put you in danger, you can do them. But… be careful! There is nothing easier than deceiving yourself when it comes to this subject. Get used to always guiding yourself by past experience: the last time I did that… what happened? What was about to happen?

So as not to trick oneself with subjective, false, assessments it is appropriate to analyze these acts; but analyze them well, like a chemist in his laboratory: cruelly, relentlessly.

To see them with clarity, let’s focus on three spotlights: intention, motive and danger

Let’s pose, then, three questions:

What is my intention in doing this? What motive do I have? What degree of danger does this put me in?

If when you dance, read, kiss, converse, touch,

~ ~10BAD INTENTION

etc., you do so with the intent of inciting your sexual passion, then any such act becomes a grave sin.

The simple act of taking the hand of your companion; reading a textbook; if you do these things with the desire, the spirit and the intent of letting your animal impulses run loose, you are already committing a grave sin. Moreover, if you commit an act out of mere curiosity, for example reading, and this curiosity later becomes a natural intent of exciting yourself sexually, you are also committing a grave sin.

Indirect sexual acts, when practiced seeking no other purpose and with deliberate intent of liberating sexual appetites, become sexual, i.e., are grave sin.

We have already demarcated the fields a bit, in the light of intent. We already know that nothing can be done, no matter how innocent it seems, if

we go into it with intent of inciting ourselves sexually. But we now face a new problem: I want to do these things with a

different intent. I am not directly looking to excite myself and release my sexual passion. Yet, I know that by doing them I may become excited sexually. Can I do them?

I want to dance with some someone or other. I want to do it in order to spend a pleasant time with him or her. It is a way to see that person I am interested in and a way to know her better. Furthermore, I just like to dance, even when it is not accompanied by sexual

~ ~11

GOOD INTENTION

excitation. But I know, and am told, that such sexual excitation can take over while I am dancing. Can I dance?

I want to watch a certain movie. I am not motivated by sexual passion. I have other, superior motives. But I know that this movie might excite me sexually. Can I watch it?

And so on successively. You may want to read a certain book, speak to a particular person, go certain places. In all those cases, other motives that are not directly sexual are moving you. What do you do?

It is now time to apply the two other spotlights: danger and motive.

Is this act dangerous for me? Morality distinguishes two classes of danger: near danger and remote danger.

Near danger. There is near danger when a subject, being in certain circumstances, falls into sin the majority of time.

However, the degree of danger of a given circumstance is not the same for everyone. John knows that he can go to the beach without a problem. It is not in his nature to walk around looking and spying; the majority of things happening around him happen without notice. John’s problem does not lie with seeing. On the other hand, touching… He knows full well that he can’t dance without subjecting himself to serious danger of grave sin!

Peter’s case is different: seeing plays very mean games on him, because he has a natural inclination to fixate on everything, without missing a detail. And clearly he fixates more on certain things… The

~ ~12

DANGER

beach is certainly dangerous for Peter; but not just the beach, even a simple walk down the street brings danger of sin to him. Even for the same individual, a thing could be cause of near danger one day and not the next. Henry usually behaves very well at dances, they don’t tend to bring near danger for him. But today he’s dancing with so-and-so, who has a very provocative way of dancing. Or, simply put, he has felt more excited than usual lately. It is evident that today, dance is a near danger for Henry.

Because of all this, sometimes it is difficult to determine whether an act brings near danger of sin or not. In general, the golden rule in these cases is to resort to experience.

How have I behaved in previous occasions when I have found myself in similar circumstances? Did I de facto sin, i.e., did I really sin?

Was I very close to sinning?

Or, on the contrary, did I have no difficulty in gracefully escaping the danger?

Numbers don’t lie: if in the majority of times when you have been in certain circumstances you have fallen into sin then such circumstances bring near danger of sin to you.

The sole act of intentionally putting yourself in near danger of sin constitutes, by itself, a grave sin.

If I know that for every ten times I dance with so-and-so, I commit grave sin in seven of them, with the very act of picking up the phone to call and invite her I am already committing a grave sin.

~ ~13

Remote danger. Here, things are different. I put myself in a situation that could induce sin but that, ordinarily, at least in the great majority of cases, I do not commit any offense. So as not to be mistaken, it is also appropriate here to resort to experience. I have gone to the beach numerous times, hundreds of times. I have only committed sin three or four times on all those occasions. Furthermore: if I analyze the causes of those offenses I committed, it is likely that I will realize that they were not due to the fact that I went to the beach, but rather to certain special circumstances that arose on such occasions. One was that I went to teach a girl to swim, knowing that it is a girl whose conduct leaves much to be desired. Another time because I went by the bar and had too many drinks. Another because it was raining and thus, instead of bathing in the ocean, I dedicated myself to observing the public very carefully…

Evidently, the beach is not a near danger for me. I can keep bathing in the ocean, but I must abandon other practices attached to maritime sports. When dealing with experiences I have not previously had, in other words, when I am presented with the opportunity to do something that could be dangerous, but I don’t know what it will be like for me since I have never done it before, it is appropriate to exercise extreme caution. Always remember that there are things that are a near danger for the majority of people. There is no reason to fool myself into thinking that they will not be that way for me. All obscenities fall into this category.

~ ~14

For something to be obscene:

a) Its theme or content must be impure or intended to incite sexual passion.

b) The impurity must be presented in an attractive way.

In a medical text, the image of a nude woman (or man) may turn up. The content of this image is conducive, in itself, to inciting sexual passion. But this particular image is of a sick woman, exempt from any physical attraction, with sores on her skin. In this case, it is not proper to talk of obscenity, because it lacks attractive character. The thing is presented in a rather repulsive way.

The same approach works for movies: if the content is conducive to inciting sexual passion and is presented in an attractive way, the movie is obscene. It goes without saying that nude images in real life fall fully into this category. All of these things, therefore, tend by their nature to fall on the side of near danger. However, sometimes it is licit to expose oneself to some dangers. It all depends on the motive.

Persons may have sufficient motive for exposing themselves to danger; or, on the other

hand, they might have insufficient motive.

A medical student, for example, has powerful motive to read certain materials in physiology that could be dangerous. A doctor has sufficient motive to perform certain examinations and tests that could be dangerous.

~ ~15

MOTIVE

A morals censor has sufficient motive to watch all types of movies, even the most obscene. A boyfriend has sufficient motive to allow himself certain small liberties with his girlfriend. It is here assumed that we are dealing with a sincere courtship that should culminate, logically, in Christian marriage. In this case, certain manifestations of affection are licit, even when they could promote sexual excitation, because the greater purpose for which this courtship is destined is sufficient motive to do so.

Understand clearly that, yes, the “liberties” discussed here are restricted. Needless to say, no direct sexual act is licit, not even in a courtship with the best of intentions.

What is the limit to the liberties of a boyfriend? It is difficult to specify exactly. We can say that the safest limit is the kiss. The reaction to a kiss depends on the person… and the kiss.

Keep in mind that there are kisses that, because of their quality or duration, could be considered directly sexual. Also bear in mind that on the matter of sexual intimacy between boyfriend and girlfriend, the less the better.

When the motive that drives the act is under all lights insufficient, then there has to be greater measurement of the lawfulness of exposing ones self to danger. It is obvious that a girl who is immersed in reading a book on anatomy or physiology, moved solely by curiosity, is exposing herself to danger that perhaps is remote, but has

~ ~16

no motive to justify it. The same can be said of reading certain other books or magazines or seeing certain movies. Intimacy with another person, even just a kiss, outside of courtship has much less justification than when the situation is between boyfriend and girlfriend. It is clear that deceit is also common here. I am going to read this book because I want to be a more cultured person and learn a little about everything… The idea seems very nice, but it so happens that “knowing about everything” always refers to sexual matters. When have you seen a layperson (not a doctor) ,opening an anatomy book to “learn” and turning to the chapter on pylorus or the pancreas or large diameter bronchi…? No. It is always opened to the chapter on sex. Who has seen projected in a public theater a “scientific” movie about blood circulation, or spinal cord lesions? No. They are all risqué topics: venereal diseases, births, etc. (Always, of course, without any useful teaching; for if that were the case, there would be nothing to say against them.)

It is a venial sin to perform an indirect sexual act without sufficient motive. Of course: if such act brings us to near danger of arriving at another direct sexual act, then the sin is grave.

Standards of practical behavior With the above details any young person could, in theory, learn to govern themselves when faced with possible violations of the sixth

~ ~17

commandment. Let us, however, move on to clarify this a little further, so that the task is easier. First, we have to summarize what has been said to this point, so as not to get lost:

1. When an opportunity presents itself for me to perform an act that is related to the sixth commandment, the first question is: “Is this a direct sexual act?

If so, there is nothing more to think about: I cannot do it. It is a grave sin.

2. If it is not a direct sexual act, I have to ask myself: “What is my intent in doing this? (Or what has it been?)

If the intention is impure, there is again nothing more to think about. I cannot do it. It is a grave sin. (If I am doing it or have done it, I have to confess.)

3. If my intent is not impure; if I am not directly seeking to awaken or liberate my sexual passion, if I am not seeking another more elevated objective, even though I know that it will provoke sexual excitement in me, then I have to analyze the act I intend to perform from the points of view of the motive that drives me and the danger to which I could be exposed.

INDIRECT SEXUAL Sufficient ACT The motive is

(Could excite me) Insufficient My intention is pure Near The danger is Remote

~ ~18

Several cases could arise, some licit and others illicit.

(Sufficient motive, remote danger.) This is the case of the doctor who has to do intimate

examinations; the student who has to read risqué material; the censor who has to watch obscene movies. They all know for certain that they possess a powerful reason for exposing themselves to the danger. They also all know that the danger (for them) is remote, because they have been exposed many other times and have not fallen into sin (or they have fallen very few times).

In this case, there is no sin, mortal or venial, by performing this indirect sexual act.

(Sufficient motive, near danger.) This is the case of the student who has to read certain material

since he has to pass the exam; the doctor who has to do certain examinations because they form part of his professional practice; the boyfriend who frequently courts his girlfriend because he sincerely wants to marry her. But all of these subjects have proven that such acts are a near danger to them, since experience has taught them that they often fall into grave sin. So what do they do? The most simple and practical solution is as follows:

~ ~19

CASE S-R

CASE S-P

CONVERT NEAR DANGER TO REMOTE DANGER

How? That depends on each situation. The doctor, for example, can hire a nurse that is always present for his examinations; the student can associate with another classmate, making him be the reader (for some this could be a solution); the boyfriend could abandon the custom of rendezvousing with his girlfriend in the darkest corner of the terrace, making his visits in plain sight. When the external conditions cannot be modified and the individual is obligated to continue in such dangerous circumstances, the (most difficult) path consists of strengthening oneself, of self-immunizing, so to speak, against the danger of moral infection. This all leads to the hard task of self-training. The habit of chastity must be acquired at all costs. A hard task, true, but imperative when we cannot change external circumstances. (And it’s also imperative when we can change them.)

And, yes, one thing must be made very clear: we have said that you have to convert the near danger to remote danger, either by modifying the circumstances, so they carry less danger; or by reinforcing yourself, so that you are capable of resisting unfavorable situations. If the goal being pursued is achieved, there is no problem. We can continue in our practice. (That is demonstrated objectively when we see that sins have really disappeared, or have been reduced to a minimum.)

~ ~20

But, if the goal being pursued is not achieved, then the matter is of such gravity that it is also necessary to abandon the profession, the girlfriend or the studies. Perhaps this assertion may seem too strong to many, but Morality is oriented toward purposes much beyond all human activity. There is no dedication, as useful as it may be, that ought to impede salvation of the soul. To that end, Jesus Christ pronounced these hard words: “If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out…”

An indirect sexual act performed with a powerful motive but under danger of sin requires you to convert the near danger to remote danger. Once the danger has been made remote, the act can be realized without it being a mortal or venial sin. If the danger cannot be made remote there is grave sin in performing said act, because it seriously exposes you to other direct sexual acts.

(Insufficient motive, remote danger.) This is the case of a person who surrenders to dangerous readings out of simple curiosity. He knows that

the motive is insufficient, but knows that he does not tend to fall into grave sin as a result of such reading.

The same can be said of someone who goes to see a movie considered dangerous for the sole act of seeing it, although he knows that there is little to no probability of falling into grave sin.

~ ~21

CASE I-R

And the same goes for certain conversations, dances, social relationships, gazes, etc. I know that I do not have powerful motives for doing it, but I do it because I also know that it is very difficult for me to fall into sin because of it.

An indirect sexual act performed without sufficient motive, but without near danger, is a venial sin.

(Insufficient motive, near danger.) Not much to say in this case. This is to deliberately expose

oneself with full conscience and liberty to a chance of near danger, positively knowing that there are more probabilities of falling than not falling.

In the case that we cited above: I have danced six times with so-and-so, and of the six times I have committed grave sin in five. I have, in fact, no powerful motive that forces me to dance with her; I know that it is a near danger. I pick up the telephone to invite her to dance… and already, at that moment, I have committed a grave sin.

An indirect sexual act performed without sufficient motive and with near danger is always a grave sin.

The sins of thought and desire

To God, the external way of performing an act is not as important as the intent with which it is done. Therefore, even without having in fact committed a sin, one can have gravely offended with just ones

~ ~22

CASE I-P

intention: these are the sins of thought and desire, which have their greatest importance in matters of chastity. Jesus Christ was very clear in this respect. To the Jews, who had made an entire formula for condemning and castigating adultery and who took great care in observing formalities, he said: “So I say to you that just by desiring the woman next to you, you have committed adultery in your heart.”

This is the spirit of the ninth commandment. It does not say “you will not commit adultery” but “you will not desire your neighbor’s wife.”

It is, therefore, imperative to be vigilant of thoughts and desires. One must confess them when they are sinful, which clearly presupposes the firm goal of avoiding them in the future. With that, an offense is not only erased, but greater evils are avoided because impure thoughts make way for impure acts: every sinful, carnal act was always preceded by an impure thought. The most important thing is to know how to distinguish when a thought is sinful and when it is not. The most important, yes, but how difficult in practice for the majority of people!

There are “broad-spectrum” people: for them, practically no thought is a grave sin. The consequence of this attitude is, inevitably, the mortal sin of thought and the common next step of de facto sin, because they cannot walk between impure, tolerated and even cultivated thoughts without falling, more or less quickly, into grave offense.

Other persons have the “too-narrow-spectrum”: these are the scrupulous. For them, the most obscene fleeting thought that strikes

~ ~23

them, even if it is without seeking it or wanting it or admitting it, becomes reason for remorse, whirling to see if they had really sinned or not; in repetition at confession “just in case…”

And the curious thing is that these scrupulous persons, at times contrary to what they might think, are not even in the slightest danger of falling into de facto sin. In practice, an interesting psychological phenomenon occurs when the scrupulous person from the force of adding on so much insignificant details, show their hand as to what is important. And, hence, we often find those tormented by doubt extremely attentive to even innocent thoughts, meanwhile a grave de facto sin may take them by surprise. It follows, then, that we must learn which thoughts are already sinful in themselves; which thoughts are dangerous; and which thoughts are innocent.

This concept is better understood when one knows how to distinguish between “ the instinct” to do something and “the urge” of the

same. Let’s go to an example.

You get home from work at noon with an empty stomach and a big appetite. After passing in front of a kitchen’s window your nose detects a delicious aroma: and there, inside, within your reach is a beautiful roast pork perfectly cooked. What happens inside you next is inevitable: you have a tremendous instinctive urge to sink your teeth into that succulent pork. An urge to enter the house, an urge to seize the roast, an urge to eat it… All of that is very logical when

~ ~24

INSTINCTS, THOUGHTS AND DESIRES

your stomach is empty. Here we use the word “urge” as a synonym of “instinct.”

But reason clearly takes over. You are a decent, trustworthy person, incapable of committing such a crime. You know perfectly well that you have to settle for breathing the delicious aroma. Not even for a second would you seriously consider the possibility of doing those things that have passed through your mind, and you can prevent them from happening. Have you sinned? Not at all. You have only experienced an instinct, and instinctive urges cannot be avoided: they are spontaneous manifestations of your appetite. There has been no consent or approval. So, let’s look at another case. Suppose that you arrived in front of the window, you detected the aroma and you have seen the pork. Immediately your desire to eat it is aroused. But this time things are different. You say to yourself: “I could seize that roast…!” Then there’s a glance around, to see if there are witnesses… On the corner there’s a police officer. “If no one has been there…!”

In the end, you continue your walk. You have not taken the feast, you have not de facto fallen. But that doesn’t matter: you have sinned with thought. Why? Because you were not limited to instinct: you had desire. You have consented, you have approved. It is very likely that if you had been guaranteed that no one could have seen you, that no one would ever find out about your offense, you would have committed it.

~ ~25

Desires are, then, consented instincts. Instincts are never sins. Desires are, when the thing being desired is illicit.

We apply th i s concept to the s ix th commandment. We are not talking about acts, being directly or indirectly sexual. We are only

talking about sexual thoughts…

No one without special grace is exempt from impure thoughts. Anyone who possesses a healthy body and a sexual instinct is always exposed to sexual thoughts assaulting them, even the most obscene. It could be from the presence of a member of the opposite sex; it could be an incident on the street; it could be an overheard conversation. In all of those cases, we could find ourselves having the urge to do whatever, and that is very natural.

It is even possible for such urges to be accompanied by very direct genetic sensations, especially in men. In spite of it all, there is no sin as long as we are in the realm of the urges of instinct.

The same thing occurs when thoughts are presented alone, detached from all stimuli. It is possible that the most impure idea might strike us when we are studying geometry. It is possible for this idea to stir up strong erotic sensations, especially if we have spend a long time sitting down.

In any case, none of that matters, as long as the thought has not been sought or consented.

~ ~26

OBSCENE THOUGHTS

There are people who are startled by the obscenity of thoughts that strike them. There is nothing more illogical than tormenting oneself with such sensation of culpability, when one has not consented to that thought. Let us do like that friar in the tale that, when he had an obscene thought, turned (imaginarily) to the devil and said to him: “You are a pig.”

But… be careful! Let us not believe that all evil thoughts are innocent, either. Decide carefully what degree of culpability you have. Ask yourself these two things:

First: Am I at fault for the obscene thought presenting itself? Because if you are accustomed to letting your imagination run wild; or you immerse yourself in risqué conversations; or you watch risqué movies… then you are responsible for the evil thoughts that might originate such acts. Second: Did I consent to this obscene thought? This is a delicate aspect. Let’s take a look in more detail.

Consenting to a thought does not mean that it gives me pleasure or awakens in me violent

erotic sensations.

Consent pertains to reason

In front of a woman I might feel strong urges… It is possible for the urges to be accompanied by strong sexual sensations, even physical sensations. That being said: I know that I shouldn’t… I am morally certain that even with the opportunity I would do nothing,

~ ~27

CONSENT

because that is prohibited of me. There is no consent. There is no desire. There is no sin. Suffice it to say, if instead I thought: “If I could…” such that the urges are transformed into desire. (It is not necessary to say those very words. What matters is the willingness of my spirit. I know that given the opportunity I would do it.) There is sin. The same thing happens with impure thoughts that present themselves alone, in the absence of any external stimuli. The fact that they come does not matter. But if I knowingly give in to them, if I approve them (i.e., given the opportunity I would put them into practice), if I enjoy them, then there is consent. There is sin.

We sin, then, with thought when:

1. We are at fault for the thought presenting itself, since we have knowingly put ourselves in a favorable situation (certain stares, dangerous readings, movies, etc.)

2. We consciously and freely entertain ourselves with the impure thought.

3. We approve of the content of the thought: this means that, given the opportunity, we would put it into practice.

Maybe you will find this somewhat complicated doctrine clarified in the folloqinf verses that a religion professor taught us when I was a student:

Feeling is not consenting, Nor is an evil thought a want consent has to go hand-in-hand with warning.

~ ~28

A terrible evil for me to consent [to] a thought that I have not been warned of and although asleep or awake if I don’t want that evil I can be certain and true I have no mortal guilt.

A married man can never sin of thought as long as the object of his

thought is linked to his spouse. A husband has the right to remember moments lived with his wife.

Or thinking about moments he has lived with her. The same for the wife, of course. There is no sin in that.

It is something else when the husband and the wife consent to thoughts whose object is someone other than their spouse. Whoever does such a thing “has already committed adultery in his heart…”

Boyfriends and girlfriends also have “certain rights.” A boyfriend who loves his girlfriend and is soon to be married cannot prevent thoughts related to his matrimonial behavior from striking him. That is perfectly natural. It is also natural that reason approve such thoughts, since they have the right to be brought into practice as part of the divine plan of procreation, once the marriage is celebrated.

~ ~29

MARRIED COUPLES AND BOYFRIENDS AND GIRLFRIENDS

The boyfriend (or girlfriend) will consider whether such thoughts could be a near danger of sin.

Sin of scandal Scandal is a “word or act, less honorable, that suggests or incites another to sin,” (or that induces him to sin). Scandal is the woman who goes out into the street dressed provocatively; the adult who talks about obscene things in the presence of children; the person lending others indecent books; the Catholic who frequents immoral shows, because although he himself will not sinning, he is inducing others, through his presence, to go down the same path. Jesus Christ had very harsh words for those who scandalize others. He once said: “It would be better for you to tie a millstone to your neck and throw yourself into the sea…” than cause scandal. It is very possible that among those reading this opusculum there may no be great sinners from scandal. Girls incapable of going out into the street half-dressed; young men incapable of bringing other boys to corrupt houses…

But be careful! There are other, more refined, scandals. Mary dances with Joe in a dangerous way. She does not sin exactly, since she knows how to control herself. But… is she sure that her companion is not sinning?

John often tells picaresque stories. He does not sin with that, since he only looks at it from a humorous angle. But in his presence he tends to have teenagers listening attentively… Is he sure that he is not giving these boys a chance to sin?

~ ~30

Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether or not there is sin of scandal, especially when it comes to dress and customs. For example: is it a sin of scandal for a girl to wear a bathing suit? There is no doubt that the first women who bathed publicly in undergarments sinned by scandal. Just like the girls today who wear those bathing suits that fit inside a thimble. The introduction of any one of those customs is always scandalous.

That being said: it always happens that a revolutionary innovation ends up being a regular standard of behavior. People get accustomed to seeing something or seeing a show and, they say, it no longer impresses them. Today’s girl, in a common bathing suit, is already a normal thing. It is no longer easy for a man to sin by just seeing her in that attire. It might no longer be the scandal it once was. Look out, though, for the threshold recommended by prudence. Exhibition of the body has never helped chastity. Something similar has happened with dance: last century, the mere act of a couple dancing in each other’s arms would have been a grave sin for both dancers… and for the majority of spectators.

Today, dancing in embrace is a generally accepted custom. It no longer, by itself, constitutes scandal. But, watch the distance!

Here the limit is closer than with clothes. And… there are things that don’t change with epochs and customs.

I have never forgotten the advice of that wise priest who would always say to those who were sure that they didn’t feel anything

~ ~31

during the most provocative dances: “it would be better if you didn’t marry.”

~ ~32