Avoid potential sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousInIL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CuriousInIL

Guest
If you are debating whether a behavior is moral or not, isn’t it best just to assume it is sinful and not engage in the behavior?

I know that this may all sound a bit to contrived and hypothetical, but I have tried to ask this underlying question before and the debate has turned more on the nature of the behavior at issue and not on my question.

So, let me try it this way: A person is assessing some of their potential behavior. This is not something they must do, it is voluntary behavior. And, there are a number of good folks that would say that the behavior is either good or, at worst, morally neutral. There is no reason to think that these good folks have any agenda or are lying, etc. However, there is a smaller number of good folks that would say the behavior is sinful. Further, while there are written discussions of the morality of this behavior (from authoritative sources), one can read those discussions in two ways If in the mindset of the first group, these writings seem to support the idea that the behavior is not sinful at all but good or neutral at worst. If however, in the mindset of the other group, these writings seem to indicate that the behavior is neutral.

Ok. So, with that, the question again. In this situation, it is difficult to assess the morality of the behavior. Isn’t it just best to err on the side of caution and consider the behavior sinful?
 
This did come up at my last confession. There has been something that I had been unsure about, so hadn’t confessed it in previous confessions. I really wanted to make a good confession though, so I prayed about it, and gave all of the information to my priest. He said that it was swimming beyond the buoys. It can be dangerous, but isn’t in and of itself wrong. In the particular case I gave him he thought that there were many blessings and it might be worth the risk, but that I had to be careful.

Of course, I am being very cryptic. So are you. What it all boils down to is that you need to weigh the benefits against the risks, and determine if there is someway you can manage the risks. If there are few if any merits, than yes, it would be best to err on the side of caution. If you feel that you have some measure of control over those risks, then it is a good idea to stay very close to God, if you are going to take those risks on.
 
If you are not sure that it is sinful it is not. There is no reason to avoid such non-sinful behavior. Is there?
 
WWJD I guess…

I would say that if it did not violate your sense of justice, equality of people or the dignity of humans as individuals then it would not be a sin.

However, assuming you cannot assess these attributes, then I would err on the side of caution and not do it. It’s like sticking your hand into a black box which could contain a bunny rabbit with probability .5 or an industrial paper shredder with probability .5. Would you stick your hand in?
 
40.png
precious_roy:
WWJD It’s like sticking your hand into a black box which could contain a bunny rabbit with probability .5 or an industrial paper shredder with probability .5. Would you stick your hand in?
Click to expand...
That depends on whether or not the rabbit is rabid or not. If it’s the paper shredder, I’ll just lose a hand, but if the rabbit is rabid and bites me, I could conceivably lose my life.
 
If you are not sure if something is a mortal sin or not then it is not. Mortal sin requires full knowledge as one of the three criteria. Being unsure is not full knowledge.
 
I don’t think he said mortal sin, did he?

At any rate, I was assuming a fluffy, friendly bunny that everyone would want to touch. Not some ravenous vampire bunny.
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
Ok. So, with that, the question again. In this situation, it is difficult to assess the morality of the behavior. Isn’t it just best to err on the side of caution and consider the behavior sinful?
Click to expand...
That’s a good stop-gap precaution, but it’s still your duty to develop a well-formed conscience.
 
I hope I’m not being too simplistic here (hopefully just “simple”!), but one would need to seek the counsel of a spiritual director, or their confessor/other trusted priest.

Here is a link to the article of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that outlines sin: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm
#1859, I thought, was relevant: “Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

I thought that I heard (like on EWTN) that if you are truly not sure if something is a sin, you are obligated to avoid it because in your mind it could indeed be sinful, and thus important to avoid (coming full circle there!).

**I think that a person unsure whether an act, or omission, is sinful would be “feigning ignorance” if they deliberately went ahead with the act/omission in question PRIOR TO determining with their confessor that the act is not sinful in their case. **What do you guys think? We need an expert opinion. Should someone post this on AAA?
 
I have sent this question to AAA before and have received no answer.
 
40.png
krysianka:
I hope I’m not being too simplistic here (hopefully just “simple”!), but one would need to seek the counsel of a spiritual director, or their confessor/other trusted priest.

Here is a link to the article of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that outlines sin: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm
#1859, I thought, was relevant: “Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

I thought that I heard (like on EWTN) that if you are truly not sure if something is a sin, you are obligated to avoid it because in your mind it could indeed be sinful, and thus important to avoid (coming full circle there!).

**I think that a person unsure whether an act, or omission, is sinful would be “feigning ignorance” if they deliberately went ahead with the act/omission in question PRIOR TO determining with their confessor that the act is not sinful in their case. **What do you guys think? We need an expert opinion. Should someone post this on AAA?
Click to expand...
Not to be too difficult here, but, first, in my particular circumstances (location, timing, etc.) there is not one particular, clearly trustable priest or director that I can talk with. There are several, but there is, in fact, the problem as I have received conflicting answers and advice.
I am leaning toward the idea that the best answer is just to avoid questionable behavior. However, the only reason that I am still debating the issue is that the folks who have advised me that the behavior is ok were very persuasive. Indeed, one of them likened the issue to “deciding that watching one football game a week” was sinful. He really saw the behavior as a total non-issue.
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
If you are debating whether a behavior is moral or not, isn’t it best just to assume it is sinful and not engage in the behavior?

I know that this may all sound a bit to contrived and hypothetical, but I have tried to ask this underlying question before and the debate has turned more on the nature of the behavior at issue and not on my question.

So, let me try it this way: A person is assessing some of their potential behavior. This is not something they must do, it is voluntary behavior. And, there are a number of good folks that would say that the behavior is either good or, at worst, morally neutral. There is no reason to think that these good folks have any agenda or are lying, etc. However, there is a smaller number of good folks that would say the behavior is sinful. Further, while there are written discussions of the morality of this behavior (from authoritative sources), one can read those discussions in two ways If in the mindset of the first group, these writings seem to support the idea that the behavior is not sinful at all but good or neutral at worst. If however, in the mindset of the other group, these writings seem to indicate that the behavior is neutral.

Ok. So, with that, the question again. In this situation, it is difficult to assess the morality of the behavior. Isn’t it just best to err on the side of caution and consider the behavior sinful?
Click to expand...
Although this is probably best decided on a case by case basis, I think that if your conscious makes you feel that something has the potential to lead you as an individual into sin then you probably shouldn’t engage in that activity, even if it isn’t technically a sin.

We are humans and some of us are unaffected by things that deeply bother or could potentially lead someone else to sin. I think that we should have compassion on one another. If listening to certain music or viewing certain movies, for example, causes your brother or sister to sin then you should not engage in the activity around them.

The person who is weaker in certain areas should not though dictate that his particular weakness mandate how other Christians should behave.
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
Not to be too difficult here, but, first, in my particular circumstances (location, timing, etc.) there is not one particular, clearly trustable priest or director that I can talk with. There are several, but there is, in fact, the problem as I have received conflicting answers and advice.
I am leaning toward the idea that the best answer is just to avoid questionable behavior. However, the only reason that I am still debating the issue is that the folks who have advised me that the behavior is ok were very persuasive. Indeed, one of them likened the issue to “deciding that watching one football game a week” was sinful. He really saw the behavior as a total non-issue.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to push your friends into giving up certain behaviors?

If this is an activity that you are considering giving up for yourself and you are not trying to force others to copy you, then your friend should respect your decision.

A good example would be the internet. SOme people get addicted and therfore can not post at all. I would not make such a person feel bad for their decision and would respect them. I would be highly offended if they suggestted that the internet be banned or say that Christians can never use the internet.
 
40.png
deb1:
Are you trying to push your friends into giving up certain behaviors?

If this is an activity that you are considering giving up for yourself and you are not trying to force others to copy you, then your friend should respect your decision.

A good example would be the internet. SOme people get addicted and therfore can not post at all. I would not make such a person feel bad for their decision and would respect them. I would be highly offended if they suggestted that the internet be banned or say that Christians can never use the internet.
Click to expand...
I guess I have not been clear.

This is only about my behavior, not my friends.

Also, while I have talked about this with my friends, the folks I have referred to, giving advice, are not friends but rather priests and others who act as spiritual directors.
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
I guess I have not been clear.

This is only about my behavior, not my friends.

Also, while I have talked about this with my friends, the folks I have referred to, giving advice, are not friends but rather priests and others who act as spiritual directors.
Click to expand...
No, you were clear. My fault completely. Sorry about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top