“For an act of eating to be gravely contrary to the good towards which the operation is ordered, the act of eating would have to, by its very nature, induce the removal of this end.”
Could someone not respond that when someone commits a sodomitic act, that they still retain their faculty for procreation? Or does such an act by its very nature induce the removal of the end, since the seed cannot terminate in the creation of life?
I was thinking of the same objection, but instead as it relates to artificial contraception. And I suppose a possible response would be that the end is not per se removed, but that an evil of nature is constituted when the goods of the act are “wholly taken away by it, or impeded”.
Another aspect of sexual morality that tends to be overlooked is St. Thomas’s tying into it the language of the common good and explaining the seriousness of sexual vice from the importance of the matter & need for an especially preserved order of reason. For example in the SCG.
Respondeo dicendum quod quanto aliquid est magis necessarium, tanto magis oportet ut circa illud rationis ordo servetur. Unde per consequens magis est vitiosum si ordo rationis praetermittatur. Usus autem venereorum, sicut dictum est, est valde necessarius ad bonum commune, quod est conservatio humani generis. Et ideo circa hoc maxime attendi debet rationis ordo. Et per consequens, si quid circa hoc fiat praeter id quod ordo rationis habet, vitiosum erit. Hoc autem pertinet ad rationem luxuriae, ut ordinem et modum rationis excedat circa venerea. Et ideo absque dubio luxuria est peccatum.
(Ia IIae Q.153 a.3)
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 said, is greatly necessary for the common good which is the conservation of humankind. And, therefore, concerning this, there ought very much to be an order of reason attended to. And, consequently, if there be done something outside of that which belongs to the order of reason, it will be vicious. But it pertains to the notion of lust that it exceeds the order and mode of reason concerning venereal things. And, therefore, without a doubt, lust is a sin.
“For an act of eating to be gravely contrary to the good towards which the operation is ordered, the act of eating would have to, by its very nature, induce the removal of this end.”
Could someone not respond that when someone commits a sodomitic act, that they still retain their faculty for procreation? Or does such an act by its very nature induce the removal of the end, since the seed cannot terminate in the creation of life?
I was thinking of the same objection, but instead as it relates to artificial contraception. And I suppose a possible response would be that the end is not per se removed, but that an evil of nature is constituted when the goods of the act are “wholly taken away by it, or impeded”.
Very good.
Another aspect of sexual morality that tends to be overlooked is St. Thomas’s tying into it the language of the common good and explaining the seriousness of sexual vice from the importance of the matter & need for an especially preserved order of reason. For example in the SCG.
Respondeo dicendum quod quanto aliquid est magis necessarium, tanto magis oportet ut circa illud rationis ordo servetur. Unde per consequens magis est vitiosum si ordo rationis praetermittatur. Usus autem venereorum, sicut dictum est, est valde necessarius ad bonum commune, quod est conservatio humani generis. Et ideo circa hoc maxime attendi debet rationis ordo. Et per consequens, si quid circa hoc fiat praeter id quod ordo rationis habet, vitiosum erit. Hoc autem pertinet ad rationem luxuriae, ut ordinem et modum rationis excedat circa venerea. Et ideo absque dubio luxuria est peccatum.
(Ia IIae Q.153 a.3)
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 said, is greatly necessary for the common good which is the conservation of humankind. And, therefore, concerning this, there ought very much to be an order of reason attended to. And, consequently, if there be done something outside of that which belongs to the order of reason, it will be vicious. But it pertains to the notion of lust that it exceeds the order and mode of reason concerning venereal things. And, therefore, without a doubt, lust is a sin.
Could you do a similar treatise on IVF?