Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on January 31, 2024, 05:17:31 PM
-
I once made a confession and mentioned to the priest that I had seen some images on the internet with female nudity, but that I had not consented to any impurity. He considered it a mortal sin without making any further inquiries.
He said as an example that if a woman in a bikini pops up and I click on it, I am already commiting a mortal sin.
I discussed it no further and simply accepted what he as saying.
But I have read a lot of old, pre-council Moral Theology manuals, and they all say that immodesty is different from impurity. I mean, I can look at a nude woman and not commit a mortal sin, if it is not a proximate occasion of sin to me and if I don't consent to any impurity.
It is always a mortal sin to put yourself in a proximate occasion of sins of impurity, this much I know.
The issue is that there are degrees to remote and proximate occasions of sin, and it largely depends on the individual and the circuмstances.
My take is that the priest is being a rigorist, or is being overly simplistic because he probably thinks that I don't have a deep Moral Theology understanding.
It is obviously better not to look at nude people, but I think that it is important to be able to differ mortal and venial sin.
This is annonymous because I think that it is inappropriate to disclose our confessions.
I would appreciate comments and discussion from people who have a deeper knowledge of Moral Theology.
-
It is always a mortal sin to put yourself in a proximate occasion of sins of impurity, this much I know.
Is this really the case? Some websites I go to for news have a risk of people randomly posting porn in the comments, making it an occasion of sin. Even if I scroll past it would it be a mortal sin?
-
I mean if you watched a movie and there was nudity, would that be a mortal sin if you wanted to finish the movie?
-
If you are on the city bus and a naked woman gets on the bus and sits down and you happen to see her, then you close your eyes and don't open them til she gets off the bus you have not committed mortal sin.
If you walk into a strip club and sit down at the bar and don't look at the stage where the dancers are, finish your drink and walk out, you have committed mortal sin
-
Every browser comes with free popup and porn blockers that you can enable. You're using this as an excuse to willingly look at pornography. Shame on you.
-
I mean if you watched a movie and there was nudity, would that be a mortal sin if you wanted to finish the movie?
Yes
-
Is this really the case? Some websites I go to for news have a risk of people randomly posting porn in the comments, making it an occasion of sin. Even if I scroll past it would it be a mortal sin?
Why can't you choose better quality news sites?
-
Is this really the case? Some websites I go to for news have a risk of people randomly posting porn in the comments, making it an occasion of sin. Even if I scroll past it would it be a mortal sin?
I believe I have read that very immodestly dressed or nude women (in this case, pornography) are always going to be a proximate occasion of sin for men because the proximity is "absolute", i.e., the vast majority of men will generally fall into mortal sin on that occasion.
That is why I stopped using 4chan, even the "safe for work" boards, because you could always count on at least one degenerate to post immoral pictures/videos
-
I once made a confession and mentioned to the priest that I had seen some images on the internet with female nudity, but that I had not consented to any impurity. He considered it a mortal sin without making any further inquiries.
In defense of the Priest, most often he will not have the time to try to extract every detail and nuance; when you bring up something touching upon impurity he's likely to assume that you are bringing it up because it was a mortal sin and that you are having trouble clearly expressing it as such.
-
I believe I have read that very immodestly dressed or nude women (in this case, pornography) are always going to be a proximate occasion of sin for men because the proximity is "absolute", i.e., the vast majority of men will generally fall into mortal sin on that occasion.
That is why I stopped using 4chan, even the "safe for work" boards, because you could always count on at least one degenerate to post immoral pictures/videos
My post.
As a general rule of thumb, I just avoid anything online that could have immodesty or pornography. Use an adblocker like another user said, check parents guides before watching a show/movie, etc.
-
It would be better for a man to never know what's going on in the political or economic world than to lose his immortal soul because of a need to look at websites that have immodest content.
-
Every browser comes with free popup and porn blockers that you can enable. You're using this as an excuse to willingly look at pornography. Shame on you.
This is nonsense. You cannot block individuals who post porn unless you block all images.. i do not want to see porn, there is no other useful sites for news, the internet is garbage full of bots
-
I believe I have read that very immodestly dressed or nude women (in this case, pornography) are always going to be a proximate occasion of sin for men because the proximity is "absolute", i.e., the vast majority of men will generally fall into mortal sin on that occasion.
That is why I stopped using 4chan, even the "safe for work" boards, because you could always count on at least one degenerate to post immoral pictures/videos
Yes or sometimes jews or discord trannies will spam post porn. Very frustrating as 4chan is more useful than majority of website on the modern internet.
-
This is nonsense. You cannot block individuals who post porn unless you block all images.. i do not want to see porn, there is no other useful sites for news, the internet is garbage full of bots
Even so nobody needs 4 Chan, 8 chan, 16 Chan, million Chan....these are excuses to read and view adult content and play innocent.
-
Even so nobody needs 4 Chan, 8 chan, 16 Chan, million Chan....these are excuses to read and view adult content and play innocent.
Some of us enjoy anonymous posting because we get to judge the idea of something not based on respect of persons but solely from the idea itself.
Does anyone know how to block specific website? I am unsure how to do this. If I can block 4chan it will stop be from going to it out of habit, the extra barrier should be enough to help.
-
I once made a confession and mentioned to the priest that I had seen some images on the internet with female nudity, but that I had not consented to any impurity. He considered it a mortal sin without making any further inquiries.
If you didn't consent, then there's no need to confess it. The priest probably assumed you were confessing a sin. He can't read your mind.
You have to judge yourself and pray for a pure conscience.
-
Some of us enjoy anonymous posting because we get to judge the idea of something not based on respect of persons but solely from the idea itself.
Does anyone know how to block specific website? I am unsure how to do this. If I can block 4chan it will stop be from going to it out of habit, the extra barrier should be enough to help.
Do you have someone else who can set up a block for you? It's hard to block something from yourself, but if you at least make getting to the site more difficult than a click or two, it might make you think before going there.
Install a blocker with a long override password. Write the password only on paper. Put the password somewhere distant from where you'd normally want to use it.
-
St Mathew 5:28
Douay-Rheims Bible (https://biblehub.com/drbc/matthew/5.htm)
But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.
-
The example the priest gave you illustrates what he understood about your situation:
"He said as an example that if a woman in a bikini pops up and I click on it, I am already committing a mortal sin."
-
Some of us enjoy anonymous posting because we get to judge the idea of something not based on respect of persons but solely from the idea itself.
Does anyone know how to block specific website? I am unsure how to do this. If I can block 4chan it will stop be from going to it out of habit, the extra barrier should be enough to help.
Even simple programs like Net Nanny can block websites. I am not fooled by your pretended innocence. 4 chan is total filth and no man has a legitimite need to post ideas there. If you care about saving your soul you'll block every image from the internet. You are willfully consenting to see it popup on your screen by continuing to go to that site. If you need software to prevent you from going to that site you are already addicted to the porn.
-
Even simple programs like Net Nanny can block websites. I am not fooled by your pretended innocence. 4 chan is total filth and no man has a legitimite need to post ideas there. If you care about saving your soul you'll block every image from the internet. You are willfully consenting to see it popup on your screen by continuing to go to that site. If you need software to prevent you from going to that site you are already addicted to the porn.
Slander. I stopped looking at porn before I became Catholic. I only use 4chan board where porn is not allowed as per the rules, though I will find a way to block the entire site.
-
I once made a confession and mentioned to the priest that I had seen some images on the internet with female nudity, but that I had not consented to any impurity. He considered it a mortal sin without making any further inquiries.
He said as an example that if a woman in a bikini pops up and I click on it, I am already commiting a mortal sin.
I discussed it no further and simply accepted what he as saying.
But I have read a lot of old, pre-council Moral Theology manuals, and they all say that immodesty is different from impurity. I mean, I can look at a nude woman and not commit a mortal sin, if it is not a proximate occasion of sin to me and if I don't consent to any impurity.
It is always a mortal sin to put yourself in a proximate occasion of sins of impurity, this much I know.
The issue is that there are degrees to remote and proximate occasions of sin, and it largely depends on the individual and the circuмstances.
My take is that the priest is being a rigorist, or is being overly simplistic because he probably thinks that I don't have a deep Moral Theology understanding.
It is obviously better not to look at nude people, but I think that it is important to be able to differ mortal and venial sin.
This is annonymous because I think that it is inappropriate to disclose our confessions.
I would appreciate comments and discussion from people who have a deeper knowledge of Moral Theology.
IMO, I agree with you that this priest is wrong. It's this type of thing that creates scrupulosity. I would agree with nearly all of your analysis in general, though I haven't carefully read every word of it.
I'd like to know where this priest was trained, i.e., by which Traditional group.
No, simply seeing a nude woman is not a mortal sin. This priest made no allowance for whether the image simply popped up somewhere or whether you deliberately sought it out, and, as you mention, whether such images constitute a remote or a proximate occasion of grave sin for you. Being subjected to a proximate occasion of sin is grave matter, unless there's proportionately grave reason to enter the occasion, e.g. to help save someone life or for a doctor to see a patient nude, etc. Subjecting oneself to a remote occasion of sin requires proportionately less justification. And, indeed, whether an occasion of sin is remote or proximate depends largely on the individual.
-
In defense of the Priest, most often he will not have the time to try to extract every detail and nuance; when you bring up something touching upon impurity he's likely to assume that you are bringing it up because it was a mortal sin and that you are having trouble clearly expressing it as such.
While the priest won't try to extract every nuance, it's his obligation to make the determination regarding mortal vs. venial sin and to guide the penitent accordingly. If he doesn't know due to lack of detail, and perhaps is in a hurry (has a line of 20 people to get through before Mass), he's better off not making a comment than simply declaring it to be mortal sin and potentially cause serious damage to an individual who may, for instance, already be prone to scruples.
-
The example the priest gave you illustrates what he understood about your situation:
"He said as an example that if a woman in a bikini pops up and I click on it, I am already committing a mortal sin."
He's wrong even there. Even clicking on an image out of an impure curiosity isn't inherently a grave sin, but could be a venial sin borne of an impure curiosity, and may in fact be done without sufficient advertance and an act of the will. If an individual finds himself clicking on such image often, and these images can easily lead to grave sins of impure/lustful thoughts, then that would be a different matter. Many scrupulous individuals feel that if they take a second glance at something it's automatically a mortal sin, but that is not necessarily the case. Grave sin of impurity entails deliberately (an act of the will) taking venereal impure pleasure in the thoughts / feelings.
-
Taken on its own, I would consider this venial.
But is it possible that this priest's response was due to knowing the other sins committed and confessed at the time? Or is this sin supposed to be taken by itself? In other words, can something like this (clicking on a sexy image, taking the bait as it were) be more than a venial sin for someone who has a tendency to mortally sin otherwise?
It seems to me that we should give the priest the benefit of the doubt as we don't know all that happened in the confessional.
-
Taken on its own, I would consider this venial.
But is it possible that this priest's response was due to knowing the other sins committed and confessed at the time? Or is this sin supposed to be taken by itself? In other words, can something like this (clicking on a sexy image, taking the bait as it were) be more than a venial sin for someone who has a tendency to mortally sin otherwise?
It seems to me that we should give the priest the benefit of the doubt as we don't know all that happened in the confessional.
Perhaps, but we don't know the priest's name, and there's no harm in discussing the question based on the parameters laid out by the OP. There are priests out there who are not properly trained in moral theology, and some who impose some of their own scrupulous attitudes (there are priest, too, who suffer from scruples) onto the consciences of others.
I'd like to at least know which group this priest belongs to, because it could cast aspersions on the quality of the seminary training there.
-
My take is that the priest is being a rigorist, or is being overly simplistic because he probably thinks that I don't have a deep Moral Theology understanding.
It is obviously better not to look at nude people, but I think that it is important to be able to differ mortal and venial sin.
I've heard it repeated that sin is sin and that all sin should be avoid, whether venial or mortal. While that's true on some level, I agree that it is important to differentiate, for several reasons. Penitents are required to confess all mortal sins, but not all venial sins, so it's important to know those which have to be confessed. But it also can have adverse effects on how people form their consciences and could harm individuals who are already prone to scrupulosity (which can cause serious damage to souls) and could also create scrupulosity in individuals. If I convince someone that something is a mortal sin when it isn't (say, if I tell them it's mortal sin to eat a piece of candy on Good Friday), then if that person (convinced of this), eats a piece of candy on Good Friday, he would in fact be committing a mortal sin (formally). There's a reason that the moral theology manuals go to great lengths to distinguish between mortal and venial sin. If it didn't matter at all, then why bother with such distinctions?
-
Perhaps, but we don't know the priest's name, and there's no harm in discussing the question based on the parameters laid out by the OP. There are priests out there who are not properly trained in moral theology, and some who impose some of their own scrupulous attitudes (there are priest, too, who suffer from scruples) onto the consciences of others.
I'd like to at least know which group this priest belongs to, because it could cast aspersions on the quality of the seminary training there.
But if he himself is scrupulous then finding out where he went to seminary would only cast false aspersions on the quality of the training there.
-
Why would someone confess something that they already believe to not be a sin?
-
Why would someone confess something that they already believe to not be a sin?
That’s an ignorant thing to say.
-
To the OP, it's hard to answer your question without having been there, but you are correct in your implication that the information you received was not accurate at all. It's impossible for us to say whether you simply misunderstood what you were told, or whether you were told this on the basis of other information you have not given us, or what exactly happened.
Maybe try this again. Go back to him in confession again when there is plenty of time to talk (not before Mass), and just say you are confused about what he explained about these types of sins, and ask him to give you a comprehensive explanation of this subject (impure looks) and how to know when this type of sin is mortal or not. Ask him any questions you have about what he says, including the questions you have posted here.
If what he said still doesn't sound right, then maybe give us an update. I would also recommend writing in to True Restoration or Most Holy Trinity Seminary and asking them to explain these principles to you; they are well-trained clergy and would give you correct information.
-
He's wrong even there. Even clicking on an image out of an impure curiosity isn't inherently a grave sin, but could be a venial sin borne of an impure curiosity, and may in fact be done without sufficient advertance and an act of the will. If an individual finds himself clicking on such image often, and these images can easily lead to grave sins of impure/lustful thoughts, then that would be a different matter. Many scrupulous individuals feel that if they take a second glance at something it's automatically a mortal sin, but that is not necessarily the case. Grave sin of impurity entails deliberately (an act of the will) taking venereal impure pleasure in the thoughts / feelings.
Right! Serious questions (not trying to engage meaningless discussion): what if the confessor knows the frame of the penitent (i.e., he's a spiritual director and has some insight about the penitent's predominant vice. Wouldn't it be a deliberate exposure to a near occasion of sin?
-
Right! Serious question (I'm not trying to engage in sophistry or meaningless discussion): what if the confessor knows the frame of the penitent (i.e., he's a spiritual director and has some insight about the penitent's predominant vice. Wouldn't it be a deliberate exposure to a near occasion of sin?
-
Why would someone confess something that they already believe to not be a sin?
I think the questions mortal vs. venial rather than sin vs. no sin. One can (and often should) confess venial sins also.
-
But if he himself is scrupulous then finding out where he went to seminary would only cast false aspersions on the quality of the training there.
Maybe, maybe not. If it was SSPX or MHT or somewhere else that's known for solid training of priests, one could write it off as just some idiosyncrasy of this priest. I've known some SSPX-trained priests that went against their training after ordination and imposed a rigoristic approach to Confession. If I were the OP, I'd probably raise the issue with the priest's superior. But if the priest was from the Pfeiffer "seminary" or one of those guys who was ordained with little training, that rightly should cast aspersions on their training. If the OP said SSPX, MHT, CMRI or other reputable seminary, that would not cast aspersions on the seminary. But if OP said, "Pfeiffer priest," that would be one more reason to avoid them and would confirm the impression people already have that there's inadequate training / formation there.
-
Right! Serious questions (not trying to engage meaningless discussion): what if the confessor knows the frame of the penitent (i.e., he's a spiritual director and has some insight about the penitent's predominant vice. Wouldn't it be a deliberate exposure to a near occasion of sin?
To conclude: although the discussion of this topic is pertinent, my wholehearted prayer (understanding that the poster is Cathinfo member and, likely, a man) is: humbly accept the priest's judgement and penance and put every effort into not doing so again.
-
To conclude: although the discussion of this topic is pertinent, my wholehearted prayer (understanding that the poster is Cathinfo member and, likely, a man) is: humbly accept the priest's judgement and penance and put every effort into not doing so again.
That's not adequate in the case of a priest giving bad advice. I would recommend asking another priest or finding a different Confessor. Obviously we should intend not to commit ANY sin again, whether mortal or venial, but if the OP were to "accept the priest's judgment," he'd have to, for instance, refrain from Holy Communion if this situation arose again before he could make it to Confession. So this type of thing can have practical effects. While the OP did not seem to be scrupulous, given that he was questioning the priest's judgment, this priest could wreak havoc on individuals who ARE scrupulous, and so my recommendation would be to speak with the priest's "superior" ... if he's part of some group where he has one.
-
If what he said still doesn't sound right, then maybe give us an update. I would also recommend writing in to True Restoration or Most Holy Trinity Seminary and asking them to explain these principles to you; they are well-trained clergy and would give you correct information.
I would second this advice. MHTS are very well trained in the principles of moral theology.
-
Maybe try this again. Go back to him in confession again when there is plenty of time to talk (not before Mass), and just say you are confused about what he explained about these types of sins, and ask him to give you a comprehensive explanation of this subject (impure looks) and how to know when this type of sin is mortal or not. Ask him any questions you have about what he says, including the questions you have posted here.
I disagree. It sounds like the OP already has a good understanding of this question. There's no need to ask the priest again, in order to discern if the priest is right or wrong.
-
I am the original OP annonymous here.
The priest was trained in a place known for solid formation, considering what was said in this thread.
I thank you all for answering. You answers were very helpful.
There was not any other context given, and this priest is not my director.
He assumed that I had a lax conscience, because I said that I had seen the images but I had not consented to any impurity. He probably considers this highly unlikely, if not impossible.
I think that he assumed that I am more ignorant than I really am, and that what he said was all I needed to hear. He probably did not think that his comment could have further consequences.
He is a good priest, in my opinion, if we disconsider this particular episode.