Is there a sane world leader left ? This shit is nonstop <| sep |> OOC So . just keep this place these as thoughts then ? Is that what you ' re trying to say ? <| sep |> No when bungie knows you get cheated you should get an emblem <| sep |> have you caught them all ? <| sep |> I think I see more of what you are thinking , but The question is whether that vice is always indicated by this or that objective external behavior . I ' m not sure how the answer to this is supposed to be anything other than yes if one is taking the Church ' s tradition seriously . For example , the Council of Trent If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties , and that both , or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery , cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other , and that he is guilty of adultery who , having put away the adulteress , shall marry another , and she also who , having put away the adulterer , shall marry another , let him be anathema . The language of guilty of adultery indicates that the council understands the actions of the remarried person as inherently adulterous of adultery and therefore , by that very fact , evil guilty . They don ' t provide any space to drive a wedge between action and morality . If you do this action , then ipso facto you are guilty of this wrong . So the council seems to say yes , remarriage I assume this is a polite way to talk about extramarital sex is sufficient for adulterousness , as you describe the vice . And generally , the whole point of moral laws and the Church ' s morality contains many moral laws is that they formulate systematically what it means to behave in accordance with a certain virtue or avoid a certain vice . So to drive a wedge between the law and the virtue is to misunderstand what the law is a necessary though not sufficient condition for acting in accordance with the relevant virtue . This is why the Church gives us generalizations like adultery is always wrong and sex with someone other than your spouse is always adultery not in order to simplify complexities of virtue into easilyunderstandable formulae , but because sometimes virtue really is that simple , at least when it comes to what not to do . Sometimes a certain kind of action , like sex with someone other than your rightful and sacramental spouse , really is always bad . Looking back , I also see reason to object to But moral objects themselves are not primarily descriptions of external behavior , but rather descriptions of states of will . as it strikes me as seriously undermining the idea of virtue as a perfection of man ' s nature , a large part of which is corporeal nature . This entire idea of external vs . internal behavior seems to reflect a notion that we can separate moral acts and relegate them to a noumenal realm where they exist off by themselves , with only a weak connection to the supposedly cold , meaningless physical world . I do not know how to support that thesis except with reference to some of the worst excesses of modern metaphysics , because no such unbridgeable division between noumenal and phenomenal genuinely exists . What is wrong about killing just is physically bringing about the corruption of another human substance that has the right to live what is wrong about contraception and lying , for that matter just is the use of a physical faculty contrary to its natural good and so on . We do not need to bring these acts into a rarefied realm in which we analyze the spirit behind them to determine their true nature the act itself is a unity , from the will to the hands moving to the trigger pulling , and any defect anywhere in the unified act e . g . being directed toward the corruption of a substance which has the right not to be corrupted being directed against the natural telos of the physical faculty , which determines its good makes it wrong . In the words of St . John Paul II from Veritatis splendor A doctrine which dissociates the moral act from the bodily dimensions of its exercise is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition . Such a doctrine revives , in new forms , certain ancient errors which have always been opposed by the Church , inasmuch as they reduce the human person to a spiritual and purely formal freedom . This reduction misunderstands the moral meaning of the body and of kinds of behaviour involving it cf . 1 Cor 619 . Saint Paul declares that the immoral , idolaters , adulterers , sexual perverts , thieves , the greedy , drunkards , revilers , robbers are excluded from the Kingdom of God cf . 1 Cor 69 . This condemnation repeated by the Council of Trent lists as mortal sins or immoral practices certain specific kinds of behaviour the wilful acceptance of which prevents believers from sharing in the inheritance promised to them . In fact , body and soul are inseparable in the person , in the willing agent and in the deliberate act , they stand or fall together . There is also this worry from Finnis , Grisez , and May certainly not all unreconstructed legalists , no ? against Kasper 10699 in 1994 If you persist in this initiative , you cannot consistently affirm what the Church has believed for centuries about the indissolubility of marriage in the same sense in which the Church has believed it . Instead , you must hold that the belief of the whole Church , from the bishops down to the last of the laity , has been in error on this matter of faith and moralsa position excluded by Vatican II see LG 12 . They are talking about the consequences of Kasper ' s proposal with regard to formal indissolubility but it applies equally to the argument that some extramarital sex is not adultery , which is contrary to what the Church has always understood adultery to mean so if it were true , the bishops must have erred on what counts as adultery but that is a question of morals , so they have had the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium in recognizing that all extramarital sex is sinful . Actually , now that I think of it , I think that last point strongly counts against the possibility that some sex outside of a valid and persisting marriage could be nonadulterous or nonsinful that ' s just not in accordance with what the bishops have always meant by adultery . So I should have just gone with that from the beginning . Whoops .