Are these things sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rhys_Thomas_00
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rhys_Thomas_00

Guest
I overheard a conversation a few of my friends were having the other day.
“She doesn’t drink, she’s Catholic”, This was immediately countered with reference to the Eucharist’s use of wine, and me pointing out that I drink.

A little later, one of them piped up “Card games and gambling are sinful.”

I thought that these in and of themselves were not sinful but rather that if they led to detriment, they were.

Am I right or is there some more to it?

Another friend said to me earlier that acting (on stage) was sinful as it is a form of lying to the public. I’m an Amateur Thesbian, and I have always enjoyed acting but never considered it sinful.

The same question is asked of acting.

Also are there other seemingly random and arbitrary things that are sinful?
 
Rhys_Thomas_00 said:
I thought that these in and of themselves were not sinful but rather that if they led to detriment, they were.
Click to expand...
You answered your own question correctly. The cardinal virtue of temperance is why nothing in-of-itself is sinful.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
You answered your own question correctly. The cardinal virtue of temperance is why nothing in-of-itself is sinful.
Click to expand...
I feel the need to make a correction here. There are many things that are, in and of themselves, sinful. Abortion, murder, theft, blasphemy…

I understand what you’re trying to say, but this statement could easily be taken grossly out of context.

OP , that’s something a lot of Protestants believe, but it’s completely false. It can be sinful to gamble if you do so with money you cannot afford to lose, but games of chance are not inherently sinful. The same is true for alcohol. There is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol so long as you do not get drunk, or do not exacerbate a medical condition.

This type of extreme prudishness has no place in Catholic thought ^^
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
nothing in-of-itself is sinful.
Click to expand...
I agree with your statement, but I would be careful. There are many things that I would say are sinful in their very nature. Murder, contraception, abortion, etc.

So, this answer would apply for acts that are not sinful in their nature, cards, drinking, acting, but for the others, you may never do.

Update: I didn’t see @ProdglArchitect answer. We must have answered at the same time. I apologize for saying the same thing. 😛
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
I feel the need to make a correction here. There are many things that are, in and of themselves, sinful. Abortion, murder, theft, blasphemy
Click to expand...
But those sins are the lack of charity. Sin is not something, it is the lack of something, namely charity. So, in-of-itself is meant for the good order of creation, in which nothing is sinful; only our abuse or lack of charity makes something sinful. Abortion is not something, it is the lack of charity carried out; instead of willing the good of another, it is the selfish ambition manifested in the ending of another life etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you’re surrounded by Religious Fundamentalists. I say RUN!
 
You’re merely playing with words here. You know very well that is not what was asked, and not what your answer would generally be interpreted as. That is high level theological / philosophical discourse and, while technically correct, would not be properly understood by most people.

When most people hear “nothing is in-and-of-itself sinful,” they will take that to mean that no action is sinful, not that “none of creation” is sinful.

It is that interpretation which must be guarded against, and it is that interpretation (the most common interpretation almost all readers of what you wrote will first make,) that I feel the need to respond against.
 
Last edited:
You’re right, my bad…Just know that’s what I meant when I wrote that…I should have thought more of others when I commented. Sorry 😦
 
Last edited:
No worries. Sometimes it’s hard to separate what you know and understand from how people will interpret what you say.

For instance, “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” Catholics, at least those moderately well versed in theology and Church teaching, understand what is meant by this. However, those who lack this knowledge take it to mean that the only people who will be saved are those who are explicitly members of the Catholic community while alive.

Sadly, when you have a theology that is 2000 years old (and much older, if you incorporate its Jewish roots), much is lost in translation for modern, unlearned, peoples.
 
Last edited:
Charity is not the central criterion of whether an act is moral. Certain acts are intrinsically evil. Playing cards or drinking are not intrinsically evil. Indeed, they need not be wrong at all if done in moderation.

Religious Fundamentalists consider all sins equal. So, for them, having an abortion is eaqually sinful to stealing a stick of gum. If you challenge this by trying to point out that they are not equally harmful, they’ll be quick to tell you " All sin is equal in the eyes of God."

I believe this inability to distinguish between greater and lesser sins is why many mainstream Protestant denominations are softening their stances on serious sins such as abortion. It’s all just sin to them. In fact, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America now refers to abortion as a “tragic option” in official documents. The key word that should shock us is “option.”
 
TheOldColonel said:
Charity is not the central criterion of whether an act is moral
Click to expand...
Sure, there are many things that are amoral. But when it comes to immorality, charity is the ‘central criterion’ of what makes an act or lack of an act, immoral. The 10 Commandments is predicated upon love for God and neighbor; the disobedience of these Commandments stems from a lack of charity towards a person/Person.
 
Last edited:
Yet consider the Robbinhood scenario. If one robs banks to feed the poor. That might well be done in charity. But is it not still immoral?
 
TheOldColonel said:
If one robs banks to feed the poor. That might well be done in charity.
Click to expand...
That is not done in pure ‘charity’, because charity has been damaged in the robbing of the bank. That might be done under the pretext of charity, or feigned charity, but not authentic charity. 🙂
 
People get Catholics confused with fundamentalist Protestants 🙂
 
As Jesus told us…it’s not what we put into us that makes us sinful…it’s what comes out of us.
 
Would not a better central criterion for judging whether it’s moral to rob banks be a consideration of whether stealing is right or wrong? If it is objectively wrong to rob banks (i.e. Thou shalt not steal) then the matter of charity become irrelevant. If not, then we’re back to charity making bank robbing ok and Robinhood is a hero. Wouldn’t you agree?
 
TheOldColonel said:
If it is objectively wrong to rob banks (i.e. Thou shalt not steal) then the matter of charity become irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It is objectively wrong to steal because it damages charity among persons. Commandments are not just arbitrarily rules for the sake of rules; they are meant to safeguard the love of God and neighbor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top