Moral Theology Question

[7HolyCats]

What do the moral manuals say on the question of different varieties of impure thoughts or pornography?

I've heard it both ways.

Some people online have told me that "impure thoughts" forms one species of sin, and that in confessing it one need get no more specific, because the different possible types (adulterous, fornicatory, homoerotic, incestuous, etc) all form one discreet species of sin in "potential" and are only different once actualized. The New Advent example on lust says, for example, "Theologians ordinarily distinguish various forms of lust in so far as it is a consummated external sin"

Others have said that since, "if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have already committed adultery"...the particular nature of the fantasy or image viewed matters, and should be specified in confession just as if you had actually committed that act.

What do the traditional moral manuals say?

[actiofidei]

I myself have always heard something in between the two positions; not that it is whether or not you consummate the thought in external sin, but whether or not you have even the intention to do so. That is, whether the fantasy is itself the means of sexual gratification or a well-formed intention. It is like the difference between wishing between now and tomorrow that Obama dies, and actually plotting his death.  But, I have no kinds of official documents or sources from within the teachings of moral theology here in my office to back up any of this. This, at least, is consummate, I feel, with what Christ taught regarding adultery.

[7HolyCats]

So if there is no real intention, then one need not morally distinguish between various types of impure thoughts or pornography?

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Isn't the point of pornography to cultivate impure thoughts?

[7HolyCats]

I assume so. But the question is whether pornography (or impure thoughts in general) form separate species of sin for a married person, if contraception used, if it is homoerotic, etc

[devotedknuckles]

uh isn't watching others "do the thing" itself impure?. unless the question is is it a sin if a married couple watches themselves in a porno? then i don't know what to think. what if a married couple watches themselves watch themselves in a porno? technology only gets creepier.  but certainly it must be a sin to watch others "do the thingy"
it hast to be.
sip sip

[7HolyCats]

No, that's not the question.

The question is (assuming there is no intent to actually do the things fantasized about) whether different types of impure thoughts form distinct species of sin, distinct moral categories of sin, in the same way that the imagined acts would if actually consummated?

Is an impure thought a different and distinct species of sin (to be mentioned as such seperately in confession) for a married person than it is for an unmarried person (ie, mental adultery vs mental fornication)?? Is an impure thought a different and distinct species of sin (to be mentioned as such in confession) if it is about an unnatural or graver sex act than if it is about merely the natural sex act (ie, mental sodomy, contraception, bestiality, incest vs. mental adultery and prostitution etc vs. mental fornication or even merely mental sex with ones own spouse)?

Forget pornography for now. It complicates things, because, as you point out, the act would have actually been committed in most cases, and you are in some ways consenting to it or encouraging it or participating in it (albeit after the fact, usually) by watching. Still, that brings up another question. Is "being the occasion for another person's sin" a single species of sin, or multiple depending on which sin you were the occasion for, degree of participation, etc?

[shirhamalot]

Howdy.

My Moral Theology (Jone & Adelman, 1951) has plenty to say on the subject, so I will try to condense it.
An outline of "The Sixth and Ninth Commandments" goes like this.
Chapter 1: Sins of impurity in general: concept ("inordinate desire for, or enjoyment of, sexual (carnal) lust"); division (complete or incomplete--regarding climax, natural or unnatural--"according as the natural purpose of sex can be attained thereby or not"); morality ("All directly voluntary sexual please is mortally sinful outside of matrimony", "indirectly voluntary sexual please is a mortal sin or a venial sin or no sin at all according as the action causing it by its nature exercises a great or slight influence or none whatsoever upon the stimulation of the sexual appetite").
Chapter 2: Consumated sins of impurity: Natural sins of impurity (fornication, adultery, rape, abduction, incest, sacrilege), unnatural sins of impurity (pollution [masturbation]: concept, the malice of pollution: direct, indirect, nocturnal; sodomy, bestiality).
Chapter 3: Non-consummated sins of impurity: sexual commotion (definition, morality: directly voluntary, indirectly voluntary; resistance), external sins against modesty: the gravity of these sins (intention, influence, particular immodest actions), the species of the sin, the number of sins; internal sins against chastity (speculative thinking about what is unchaste, morolse delectation, unchaste desires).
Chapter 4: Sexual Perversity: Forms (Paradoxia, anesthesia, hyperesthesia, paresthesia), Imputability.

The introduction to the book explains its various purposes, and seems to make clear that it should be helpful both to priests and lay people in order to make good confessions. So, I think, impure thoughts are fornication seem to be held as distinct sins, having a distinct species, which would need to be confessed seperately. I think we can understand our Lord's words to perhaps mean that both are sinful in the same degree (ie mortally), and that cleanliness of heart is as important as cleanliness of actions, not that we are expected to literally regard them as having the same exact moral quality, or that we need to confess adultery as such if we have been guilty of impure thoughts.

Hope that helps!

Pax,
SH

[7HolyCats]

Okay, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for. Thanks.

But I'm still not sure my question is being fully understood.

I know impure thoughts and actual adultery or fornication are separate sins.

What I'm wondering is, in a similar way to how the "divisions" of the sins are analyzed into their separate species in moral manuals...if there is a division of the internal sin against chastity, if there are multiple divisions of the sin "impure thoughts" according to the potential multiple divisions of the theoretically external act imagined or fantasized about (adultery, sodomy, prostitution, etc).

I'd like to know more of what your manual says about this under the section "internal sins against chastity (speculative thinking about what is unchaste, morose delectation, unchaste desires)"

Would confessing "impure thoughts" cover all impure thoughts? Or, as if the acts were external, would one need to separately mention "impure thoughts about a woman (and whether or not I already have a wife)" "fantasizing about hiring a prostitute" "impure thoughts about homoerotic acts" "impure thoughts about an animal" etc

[glgas]

According to my memory Noldin (Casuistical moraltheology) allowed to think about sex with living spouse in advance or remembering the near past, but considered mortal sin to fantasize about sex in the past with the spouse who is already dead. The first promotes the conjugal sex, the later is is occasion to sin.

Otherwise incestuous, homosexual, adulterous, fantasies were considered special sin. The logic is again: occasion/promotion to that special sin.

laszlo

No, that's not the question.

Is an impure thought a different and distinct species of sin (to be mentioned as such seperately in confession) for a married person than it is for an unmarried person (ie, mental adultery vs mental fornication)?? Is an impure thought a different and distinct species of sin (to be mentioned as such in confession) if it is about an unnatural or graver sex act than if it is about merely the natural sex act (ie, mental sodomy, contraception, bestiality, incest vs. mental adultery and prostitution etc vs. mental fornication or even merely mental sex with ones own spouse)?