Instaurare Omnia In Christo

Aristotelian-Thomist

I answer that, to the extent that something is more necessary, to that extent it behoves there to be an order of reason kept about it. Whence, consequently, if the order of reason is set aside, it is more vicious. But the use of venereal organs, as has been…

St. Thomas’s explanation of sexual ethics is much more beautiful and reasonable and illuminating and noble than the typical Personalist explanation ie. ‘don’t use people, that’s mean, they are an end in themselves.’

There is something true about certain sexual sins going against the dignity of another person but

a) it is not the whole story - for example, how does this account cover things like the unnatural sin which is way more unnatural and worse than ‘using people’? and

b) the truth in such an explanation is basically just the evil of damaging the dignity of another - but what is it that is against the dignity of the person? Is it treating the other person ‘not as an end in themselves’? Granted that it is wrong not to recognise that every human is individually created in the image of God and should be treated accordingly, there are clearly occasions where there is nothing wrong with ‘using’ people secundum quid eg. using the labour of another to clean your flat. Fornication is against the dignity of the other person because of the very evil of the act, as well as it’s opposition to the good of purity, and this is therefore explanatorily contingent in showing that it is unreasonable and ignoble in itself.

www.group-telegram.com/ca/IgnemVeniMittere.com/1476

31 viewsedited  Mar 22 at 18:16

St. Thomas’s explanation of sexual ethics is much more beautiful and reasonable and illuminating and noble than the typical Personalist explanation ie. ‘don’t use people, that’s mean, they are an end in themselves.’

There is something true about certain sexual sins going against the dignity of another person but

a) it is not the whole story - for example, how does this account cover things like the unnatural sin which is way more unnatural and worse than ‘using people’? and

b) the truth in such an explanation is basically just the evil of damaging the dignity of another - but what is it that is against the dignity of the person? Is it treating the other person ‘not as an end in themselves’? Granted that it is wrong not to recognise that every human is individually created in the image of God and should be treated accordingly, there are clearly occasions where there is nothing wrong with ‘using’ people secundum quid eg. using the labour of another to clean your flat. Fornication is against the dignity of the other person because of the very evil of the act, as well as it’s opposition to the good of purity, and this is therefore explanatorily contingent in showing that it is unreasonable and ignoble in itself.

BY Instaurare Omnia In Christo