Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: 2Vermont on March 08, 2022, 03:00:19 PM
-
Does anyone know what the Church moral teaching is regarding what constitutes appropriate interaction [including in-person, online, emails, texts, or phone calls] with members of the opposite sex [including interactions of single folks with married folks and married folks with other married folks]? As Catholics, are we supposed to be careful in this regard so as not to cause scandal, occasions of sin, etc.? I thought I recall hearing/reading about this somewhere along the line.
Not sure if that makes sense, but thanks in advance!
-
It's a good question, but it brings up a point --
I think the Church used to rely on the Faithful having a bit of common sense.
Did the Church have to release a specific encyclical against each of 1000 forms of sin against the Sixth and Ninth: porn novels, porn magazines, "gentleman's clubs", and 50 other occasions of sin? Or do they content themselves with prohibitions against "occasions of sin" and leave the application to common sense?
And for those with no common sense, and/or the IQ of a gerbil, then the fallback "ask your priest" should suffice to cover it.
I bet you can't find a single Church docuмent or prohibition against porn websites, for example -- unless you cite something general and vague. Which is fine, and as it should be. The Church can't be expected to spell out every specific sin.
For example, we can rely on the Golden Rule. If you wouldn't like your wife going out to dinner with a strange man, then YOU shouldn't be that strange man going out to dinner with another man's wife.
If you wouldn't want some sleazebag doing such-and-such to your wife, then you shouldn't do those things with another woman. And so on.
-
The best rule is for husbands not to hang around other women without the wife present, and vice-versa.
-
It's a good question, but it brings up a point --
I think the Church used to rely on the Faithful having a bit of common sense.
Did the Church have to release a specific encyclical against each of 1000 forms of sin against the Sixth and Ninth: porn novels, porn magazines, "gentleman's clubs", and 50 other occasions of sin? Or do they content themselves with prohibitions against "occasions of sin" and leave the application to common sense?
And for those with no common sense, and/or the IQ of a gerbil, then the fallback "ask your priest" should suffice to cover it.
I bet you can't find a single Church docuмent or prohibition against porn websites, for example -- unless you cite something general and vague. Which is fine, and as it should be. The Church can't be expected to spell out every specific sin.
For example, we can rely on the Golden Rule. If you wouldn't like your wife going out to dinner with a strange man, then YOU shouldn't be that strange man going out to dinner with another man's wife.
If you wouldn't want some sleazebag doing such-and-such to your wife, then you shouldn't do those things with another woman. And so on.
I agree with what you're saying generally but we all know we live in a post-revolution degenerate war that preaches "you can choose your own sex" as common sense and most people go to co-ed schools and know not boundaries between opposite sex (myself as an example).
The only thing I could find is from this kinda infamous TIA website but it was helpful
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/C065_Court_1.htm (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/C065_Court_1.htm)
-
The best rule is for husbands not to hang around other women without the wife present, and vice-versa.
I was told is borders on adultery if a married man is ever alone with a woman (married or single), for it may put the man in a near occasion of mortal sin.
the Bible speaks about any man who lusts after a woman with his eyes has already committed adultery in his heart.
-
I have always maintained that the two sexes should approach each other primarily as husband and wife within the sacrament of matrimony, and that otherwise, men should have friendships with other males, and women should have friendships with other females. Family members, of course, would be an exception to this, out of sheer necessity.
Men wanting to have friendships with women not their wives, and women wanting to have friendships with men not their husbands, are just asking for trouble. That shouldn't even need to be explained.
The mixed-gender workplace, likewise, is just trouble waiting to happen.
And for some reason --- evidently they just want the friendship, women seem more "needy" that way --- there is a certain stripe of secular woman who absolutely loves to have ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ men as friends. There's not a current in the opposite direction, of men longing after, and seeking out, friendships with lesbians. The other way around just doesn't work.
-
It's a good question, but it brings up a point --
I think the Church used to rely on the Faithful having a bit of common sense.
Did the Church have to release a specific encyclical against each of 1000 forms of sin against the Sixth and Ninth: porn novels, porn magazines, "gentleman's clubs", and 50 other occasions of sin? Or do they content themselves with prohibitions against "occasions of sin" and leave the application to common sense?
And for those with no common sense, and/or the IQ of a gerbil, then the fallback "ask your priest" should suffice to cover it.
I bet you can't find a single Church docuмent or prohibition against porn websites, for example -- unless you cite something general and vague. Which is fine, and as it should be. The Church can't be expected to spell out every specific sin.
Yeah, I suspected there wasn't an actual "teaching". I'm guessing that this may be one of those things that might depend on circuмstances and relationships involved and, as you said, best to leave up to a good and holy priest. Unfortunately, nowadays, most Catholics do not have weekly access to such a priest.
-
Yeah, I suspected there wasn't an actual "teaching". I'm guessing that this may be one of those things that might depend on circuмstances and relationships involved and, as you said, best to leave up to a good and holy priest. Unfortunately, nowadays, most Catholics do not have weekly access to such a priest.
The Bible makes such clear.
-
I found this [albeit Novus Ordo] regarding opposite sex friendships in dating and in marriage, but again, I see no reference to Church teachings:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/50512/do-opposite-sex-friendships-work-in-dating
-
I found this [albeit Novus Ordo] regarding opposite sex friendships in dating and in marriage, but again, I see no reference to Church teachings:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/50512/do-opposite-sex-friendships-work-in-dating
My understanding is that the specifics are left to the local bishops because of the differences of local customs in different parts of the world. Having lived in different countries I can see that makes sense.
-
Does anyone know what the Church moral teaching is regarding what constitutes appropriate interaction [including in-person, online, emails, texts, or phone calls] with members of the opposite sex [including interactions of single folks with married folks and married folks with other married folks]? As Catholics, are we supposed to be careful in this regard so as not to cause scandal, occasions of sin, etc.? I thought I recall hearing/reading about this somewhere along the line.
Not sure if that makes sense, but thanks in advance!
Odd request coming from you 2Vermont, do you need a book or books to give to someone?
-
In my opinion, when you dislike or hope your partner does not do something, you should discipline yourself first. In a marriage relationship, the loyalty to each other is more initial than others. Devotion to each other is for all men and women.
-
The best rule is for husbands not to [voluntarily] hang around other women without the wife present, and vice-versa.
Sometimes they need to, such as in work environments.
-
1 Tim. 5:1-2 (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~1Tim.C4.L3.n179): "entreat...young women, as sisters, in all chastity."
See these posts:
Ch. 12 "When the Ladies are Present" of Social Manual for Seminarians (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=3839) (1962) is also good (and quite entertaining 😄).
-
Sometimes they need to, such as in work environments.
Yes, and that's been the cause of more shenanigans than can even be imagined. There are many married women in the workplace who like the idea of gaining the attentions of men not their husbands. (And vice versa.) In modern society, marriage is seen as a serial thing anyway, and if someone sees an opportunity to "trade up", well...
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does. And contraception (a fortiori sterilization) gives a mischievous wife (or husband) the opportunity to make their spouse into a cuckold, with no one the wiser.
-
that's been the cause of more shenanigans than can even be imagined
Indeed. I've experienced such office politics nonsense before. I prefer majority male work environments.
-
Indeed. I've experienced such office politics nonsense before. I prefer majority male work environments.
As an older single woman, I also prefer majority male work environments. Before anyone labels me as immoral, let me state the reason why. Women’s gossip and backbiting, almost always present, makes for a toxic workplace. I prefer my mental energies to go into getting the job done, whatever that is. As an older lady, I don’t have to contend with men looking to hook up with me. I’m no longer particularly attractive and I’m not well-off, so the younger men’s attention, if sought out at all, tends to be as a motherly or even grandmotherly person, for advice. Often, it is for historical or factual information, quite harmless, and I’m glad to oblige. Men are far less prone to divulging details of their private lives in a male predominant workplace. This is a plus, as there are many things I have no need or desire to know. (A man who stands out for doing this is often a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or transgender, in which case, I can establish a safe distance from the person that protects both of our privacy.).
At work, I want the focus to be task and goal oriented, not upon relationships and emotions!