[Samseau]

It is time to address the root of the courrption on Christian sexual ethics: Thomas Aquinas. This man has dominated Christian thought for over 700 years and has been the intellectual justification for Churches the world over on many issues. The following quote comes from Summa Theologica where Aquinas argues why the act of sex itself is a sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm

Quote:

Article 2. Whether simple fornication is a mortal sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that simple fornication is not a mortal sin. For things that come under the same head would seem to be on a par with one another. Now fornication comes under the same head as things that are not mortal sins: for it is written (Acts 15:29): "That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." But there is not mortal sin in these observances, according to 1 Timothy 4:4, "Nothing is rejected that is received with thanksgiving." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 2. Further, no mortal sin is the matter of a Divine precept. But the Lord commanded (Hosea 1:2): "Go take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 3. Further, no mortal sin is mentioned in Holy Writ without disapprobation. Yet simple fornication is mentioned without disapprobation by Holy Writ in connection with the patriarchs. Thus we read (Genesis 16:4) that Abraham went in to his handmaid Agar; and further on (Genesis 30:5-9) that Jacob went in to Bala and Zelpha the handmaids of his wives; and again (Genesis 38:18) that Juda was with Thamar whom he thought to be a harlot. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 4. Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But simple fornication is not contrary to charity, neither as regards the love of God, since it is not a sin directly against. God, nor as regards the love of our neighbor, since thereby no one is injured. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 5. Further, every mortal sin leads to eternal perdition. But simple fornication has not this result: because a gloss of Ambrose [The quotation is from the Gloss of Peter Lombard, who refers it to St. Ambrose: whereas it is from Hilary the deacon] on 1 Timothy 4:8, "Godliness is profitable to all things," says: "The whole of Christian teaching is summed up in mercy and godliness: if a man conforms to this, even though he gives way to the inconstancy of the flesh, doubtless he will be punished, but he will not perish." Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 6. Further, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi) that "what food is to the well-being of the body, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the human race." But inordinate use of food is not always a mortal sin. Therefore neither is all inordinate sexual intercourse; and this would seem to apply especially to simple fornication, which is the least grievous of the aforesaid species.

On the contrary, It is written (Tobit 4:13): "Take heed to keep thyself . . . from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know a crime." Now crime denotes a mortal sin. Therefore fornication and all intercourse with other than one's wife is a mortal sin.

Further, nothing but mortal sin debars a man from God's kingdom. But fornication debars him, as shown by the words of the Apostle (Galatians 5:21), who after mentioning fornication and certain other vices, adds: "They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." Therefore simple fornication is a mortal sin.

Further, it is written in the Decretals (XXII, qu. i, can. Praedicandum): "They should know that the same penance is to be enjoined for perjury as for adultery, fornication, and wilful murder and other criminal offenses." Therefore simple fornication is a criminal or mortal sin.

I answer that, Without any doubt we must hold simple fornication to be a mortal sin, notwithstanding that a gloss [St. Augustine, QQ. in Deut., qu. 37 on Deuteronomy 23:17, says: "This is a prohibition against going with whores, whose vileness is venial." For instead of "venial" it should be "venal," since such is the wanton's trade. On order to make this evident, we must take note that every sin committed directly against human life is a mortal sin. Now simple fornication implies an inordinateness that tends to injure the life of the offspring to be born of this union. For we find in all animals where the upbringing of the offspring needs care of both male and female, that these come together not indeterminately, but the male with a certain female, whether one or several; such is the case with all birds: while, on the other hand, among those animals, where the female alone suffices for the offspring's upbringing, the union is indeterminate, as in the case of dogs and like animals. Now it is evident that the upbringing of a human child requires not only the mother's care for his nourishment, but much more the care of his father as guide and guardian, and under whom he progresses in goods both internal and external. Hence human nature rebels against an indeterminate union of the sexes and demands that a man should be united to a determinate woman and should abide with her a long time or even for a whole lifetime. Hence it is that in the human race the male has a natural solicitude for the certainty of offspring, because on him devolves the upbringing of the child: and this certainly would cease if the union of sexes were indeterminate.

This union with a certain definite woman is called matrimony; which for the above reason is said to belong to the natural law. Since, however, the union of the sexes is directed to the common good of the whole human race, and common goods depend on the law for their determination, as stated above (I-II, 90, 2), it follows that this union of man and woman, which is called matrimony, is determined by some law. What this determination is for us will be stated in the Third Part of this work (Supplement,050, seqq.), where we shall treat of the sacrament of matrimony. Wherefore, since fornication is an indeterminate union of the sexes, as something incompatible with matrimony, it is opposed to the good of the child's upbringing, and consequently it is a mortal sin.

Nor does it matter if a man having knowledge of a woman by fornication, make sufficient provision for the upbringing of the child: because a matter that comes under the determination of the law is judged according to what happens in general, and not according to what may happen in a particular case.

Reply to Objection 1. Fornication is reckoned in conjunction with these things, not as being on a par with them in sinfulness, but because the matters mentioned there were equally liable to cause dispute between Jews and Gentiles, and thus prevent them from agreeing unanimously. For among the Gentiles, fornication was not deemed unlawful, on account of the corruption of natural reason: whereas the Jews, taught by the Divine law, considered it to be unlawful. The other things mentioned were loathsome to the Jews through custom introduced by the law into their daily life. Hence the Apostles forbade these things to the Gentiles, not as though they were unlawful in themselves, but because they were loathsome to the Jews, as stated above (I-II, 103, 4, ad 3).

Reply to Objection 2. Fornication is said to be a sin, because it is contrary to right reason. Now man's reason is right, in so far as it is ruled by the Divine Will, the first and supreme rule. Wherefore that which a man does by God's will and in obedience to His command, is not contrary to right reason, though it may seem contrary to the general order of reason: even so, that which is done miraculously by the Divine power is not contrary to nature, though it be contrary to the usual course of nature. Therefore just as Abraham did not sin in being willing to slay his innocent son, because he obeyed God, although considered in itself it was contrary to right human reason in general, so, too, Osee sinned not in committing fornication by God's command. Nor should such a copulation be strictly called fornication, though it be so called in reference to the general course of things. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "When God commands a thing to be done against the customs or agreement of any people, though it were never done by them heretofore, it is to be done"; and afterwards he adds: "For as among the powers of human society, the greater authority is obeyed in preference to the lesser, so must God in preference to all."

Reply to Objection 3. Abraham and Jacob went in to their handmaidens with no purpose of fornication, as we shall show further on when we treat of matrimony (Supplement,065, 5, ad 2). As to Juda there is no need to excuse him, for he also caused Joseph to be sold.

Reply to Objection 4. Simple fornication is contrary to the love of our neighbor, because it is opposed to the good of the child to be born, as we have shown, since it is an act of generation accomplished in a manner disadvantageous to the future child.

Reply to Objection 5. A person, who, while given to works of piety, yields to the inconstancy of the flesh, is freed from eternal loss, in so far as these works dispose him to receive the grace to repent, and because by such works he makes satisfaction for his past inconstancy; but not so as to be freed by pious works, if he persist in carnal inconstancy impenitent until death.

Reply to Objection 6. One copulation may result in the begetting of a man, wherefore inordinate copulation, which hinders the good of the future child, is a mortal sin as to the very genus of the act, and not only as to the inordinateness of concupiscence. On the other hand, one meal does not hinder the good of a man's whole life, wherefore the act of gluttony is not a mortal sin by reason of its genus. It would, however, be a mortal sin, if a man were knowingly to partake of a food which would alter the whole condition of his life, as was the case with Adam.

Nor is it true that fornication is the least of the sins comprised under lust, for the marriage act that is done out of sensuous pleasure is a lesser sin.

There's a lot to evaluate here, as Aquinas was one of the smartest men to have ever lived. He's right next to Socrates, Kant, Plato, and Aristotle. Still, no man is beyond error. Only God is infallible. There are several errors above which I will now elaborate.

First of all, Aquinas seems to refer to the mere act of sex as "simple fornication," but not quite. As bolded at the bottom of the essay, he refers to "sensuous pleasure" that leads to marriage as a lesser sin. Is sensuous pleasure merely kissing, or does it involve more sex acts such as blow jobs or intercorse? It is unclear. Aquinas wrote in a dense, philosophical language and he used very specific definitions for all of his words. It appears he distinguished that simple fornication was not the same thing as fornication; fornication meant whoring for Aquinas, whereas simple fornication might be equivalent to a man banging a slut with no intention of marrying her or building any sort of life with her.

The fact Aquinas used "simple fornication" and "fornication" to refer to different acts is of course going to confuse most people, especially as he wrote in a time when 99.5% of people were illiterate. Most educated men could easily be confused by this sloppy use of verbiage, and for the illiterate masses there would be no chance. Hence the word fornication, which previously had always meant whoring then became understood to mean [i]all sex acts in general/i]. This is how the telephone game perverting the original message of the Bible on sexual ethics began.

In addition to the confusing use of language, Aquinas argues against "simple fornication" by claiming that since sex can beget children, sex should be avoided unless married so that the children would have a proper family environment to nurture them. This makes a bit of sense in a world without birth control but no sense at all in a world with birth control.

For even without birth control Aquinas's argument does not make the act of sex sinful, but the abandonment of children conceived via sex sinful. He fails to show that the sin of abandoning bastards is the same as the sin of mere sex. Obviously in Aquinas's time, he wouldn't have needed to show such a connection because the idea one could engage in casual sex with sophisticated birth control simply did not exist in his time. But even still, coitus interruptus (pulling out before ejaculating your load into a vagina) is an extremely effective method of birth control that Aquinas must have known about as it is mentioned in the story of Onan. So to equate all sex acts with pregnancy was already known not to be true even in his time.

I suppose this is why Catholics traditionally banned birth control was so that Aquinas's arguments would not be so easily contradicted. Obviously, this has worked against the Catholics as nearly all of Europe is atheist today in addition to the millions of other members who are Catholics in name only but actually engage in casual sex all the time.

In addition, Aquinas does not consider the possibility that a couple could conceive of a child outside of marriage and raise the child together even if they were not married. This is an error; it is entirely possible for two parents to raise a child together even if not under the optimal conditions of marriage. Of course determining paternity would have been a problem back in 1270 AD, but if the as long as the child was conceived not in a one-night stand type of scenario but instead via a relationship most doubts about the child could be eliminated. In 1270 AD even the sluttiest of women were extremely unlikely to sleep with more than one man at a time, due to both social and STD risks at the time.

Because of these errors, in addition to the confusing and dense philosophical language Aquinas used, Aquinas's use of the phrase "simple fornicaton" morphed the word "fornication" from prostitution into mere sex in general which has persisted until the present day.

Moreover, Aquinas's quotations of scripture is inadequate and never once does he quote anything in the Bible that shows anything beyond prostitution to be sinful.

This errors become highly apparent when we evaluate objection 6:

Quote:

Objection 6. Further, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi) that "what food is to the well-being of the body, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the human race." But inordinate use of food is not always a mortal sin. Therefore neither is all inordinate sexual intercourse; and this would seem to apply especially to simple fornication, which is the least grievous of the aforesaid species.

Augustine's comparison of food to sex seems apt, and this is also consistent with what I've been arguing in so far: having a good bang is really no different than eating an expensive dinner and having an expensive dinner is in no way a serious sin. Indeed, sometimes it is good to fast from food for the sake of God, but this does not mean food is sinful. Likewise fasting from sex on occasion is also a good way to draw closer to God, but completely abstaining from sex makes about as much sense as completely abstaining from food.

The inadequacies of Aquinas's arguments are completely revealed in his reply to objection 6:

Quote:

Reply to Objection 6. One copulation may result in the begetting of a man, wherefore inordinate copulation, which hinders the good of the future child, is a mortal sin as to the very genus of the act, and not only as to the inordinateness of concupiscence. On the other hand, one meal does not hinder the good of a man's whole life, wherefore the act of gluttony is not a mortal sin by reason of its genus. It would, however, be a mortal sin, if a man were knowingly to partake of a food which would alter the whole condition of his life, as was the case with Adam.

Here, Aquinas' rebuttal to food being good for the body with sex being good for the human race is to compare the impregnation of a random slut with that of Adam disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Wisdom. While I think many men probably feel the same way about impregnating a random slut, I do believe his comparison is absurd as having a child with an unmarried woman will not doom the human race, or the future of the child, in the same way as being cast out of the Garden of Eden.

To reiterate, there is a serious leap of logic from conceiving a child out of wedlock to abandoning the child completely. Conceiving the child is not the same thing as abandoning the child, and how Aquinas fails to consider this may just be a result of his asexual lifestyle; as a monk styled after St. Paul he is probably reaching for a conclusion to justify both the holiness of St. Paul and himself. Regardless of the failure of logic here, concluding that the mere act of sex is sinful because it may result in an uncared for bastard child is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow.

This error of logic, which really wasn't of much consequence in 1260 AD, results in terrible absurdities in the post sexual-revolution hookup culture that has caused many men incredible suffering. Often times the most obedient men to God are finding themselves without any families to raise or married to a slut who promptly divorce rapes him later because they sincerely believed that having sex outside of marriage was a sin and thus betatify themselves by refusing to fuck low-quality women and dominate them for the sluts that they are. Instead they get married to sluts, erroneously thinking they are obeying the will of God and having sanctified sex under the banner of Holy marriage, when in fact they were sinning tremendously by marrying a woman undeserving of marriage and casting pearls before swine. And because they gave what was sacred to dogs, they were trampled underfoot and torn to pieces.

Had many Christian men understood what the Bible said about women when the sexual revolution was occurring, then perhaps they would have been able to secure more children out of the slut-generation in the 1960's and raise more Christians to better combat the current move toward greater Godlessness and destruction America faces today.

However, in spite of these past losses I believe it is time for Christian men to take their balls back and handle low-quality women for what they are while securing some sort of progeny out of the modern slut. How Christen men can do this I will elaborate further in future articles after I collect some more information out of American family lawyers and figure out a way for men to beat the system.

Till then, God bless.