Can God's True Church commit sin?

[malachi_a_serva]

You talk a lot of smack, but like I said…you don’t know what you’re talking about.So, again…since this was something forced on the churches by an outside entity. That’s “full consent”? Yeah right…

Now, since you have persisted in bearing what appears to be a false witness against the Catholic Church, would you like to shift gears and answer for a transgression of the 8th commandment? So? I repented and came home.

As for idle words…is that your best? Let’s look at what it actually means.
You seem to have come in tonight with nothing but rhetoric MaS. Why? Catholics offering scriptural answers that actually have merit taking all the fun out of trying to debate with us.:knight2: Oh well…

My point exactly - regardless of the REASONS on how the church got to bankruptcy court - the Vatican now has

“1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

full knowledge that somne will be left not fully paid. sHOULD IT NOT SELL EVERYTHING IT COULD IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE DEBT?

I feel the Vatican today has full knowledge etc… as you described. It should make right. Make whole. Regardless of what it takes. Bankruptcy is secular.

 

[Enter]

Just wondering about your opinions to this. I guess the easy answer is “no” but individuals within the church can…

I am looking towards more of accountability of the church. Can the RCC sin?

For instance, if it was 1955 and my Parish told me it was OK to eat meat on Friday - would that be the “church” sinning? This example is hypothetical but what if it happened. Would it again just be the “priest” who said it be sinning?

Hopefully you understand my position and I am curious as to opinions.

(1 John 3: 3 - 9) “Surely everyone who entertains this hope must purify himself, must try to be as pure as Christ. Any one who sins at all breaks the law, because to sin is to break the law. Now you know that He appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in Him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen Him or known Him. My children do not let anyone lead you astray; to live a holy life is to be holy just as He is holy; to lead a sinful life is to belong to the Devil, since the Devil was a sinner from the beginning. It was to undo all that the Devil has done that the Son of God
appeared. No one who has been begotten by God sins: because God’s seed remains inside him, he cannot sin when he has been begotten by God.”
We know that anyone who has been begotten by God does not sin, because the begotten Son of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”

 

[Church_Militant]

full knowledge that somne will be left not fully paid. sHOULD IT NOT SELL EVERYTHING IT COULD IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE DEBT?

I feel the Vatican today has full knowledge etc… as you described. It should make right. Make whole. Regardless of what it takes. Bankruptcy is secular.

I think they should just as soon as all the other n-C communities (who don’t do near what the Catholic Church does for the poor) sell off all that they have and give it all to the poor…otherwise all I hear is Judas’ voice ringing down the centuries when he said…“Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” (see John 12 for the context)

 

[Hellisreal]

Yes, maybe the Church should get rid of Catholic Charities too. Sell off some of the parishes that provide food and shelter to the homeless, should have never started up hospitals I guess either. Or silly things like schools.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, maybe the Church should get rid of Catholic Charities too. Sell off some of the parishes that provide food and shelter to the homeless, should have never started up hospitals I guess either. Or silly things like schools.

Yeah, God forbid that we should continue to do anything to preserve and protect civilization as we have in the past, right?

 

[JaneFrances]

Thank you. In a nut shell. A man made thing to justify not repaying your debts.

Bankruptcy is a “man made thing.” Money is a man made thing. Monetary debt is a man made thing. It doesn’t make any sense at all to refuse a “man made” defense of a “man made” issue.

The words of our Lord come to mind, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” American bankruptcy law is based on our American understanding of commerce, debt, and finance.

Some Church authorities are simply awful businessmen. Some are dishonest. Some are lazy. Some are neglectful. Any part of a particular parish’s bankruptcy is the repsonsibility of its pastor and administrators. This is not a corporate sin, as you would suggest it should be.

Some Church authorities, on the other hand, are brilliant in the ways of finance and administration. They budget better than many households. They provide works of mercy for scores of poor and homeless, while meeting the spiritual needs of their flock. This is a function of good business sense and responsible stewardship.

In any case, if bankruptcy is your smoking gun, it doesn’t fly. Yes, not paying your debt is an objective evil. BUT, there are certain circumstances which reduce the culpability of any given individual/institution, especially in the case of bankruptcy.

Would it be easier for you if we provided a list of all the bad things that people do and you, in turn, could tell us which of these bad things proves that particular person/church is not a child of God and/or part of His Church?

 

[estesbob]

My point exactly - regardless of the REASONS on how the church got to bankruptcy court - the Vatican now has

“1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

full knowledge that somne will be left not fully paid. sHOULD IT NOT SELL EVERYTHING IT COULD IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE DEBT?

I feel the Vatican today has full knowledge etc… as you described. It should make right. Make whole. Regardless of what it takes. Bankruptcy is secular.

The Church is allowed to use the Jusice system. The Vatican has no liabiltiy for what was done by an individual Priest or diocese. of course I know none of this matters as this thread is just anohter of you many “stalking horse” threads you use to bash the Church.

 

[Godfollower]

I opened this thread with the question "Could God’s True Church Commit SIN? -

Thank you for you’re various responses. It would seem preposterous to think that God’s True Church - as a whole - could sin. I do not think it could.

I am reviewing a No.3 Most Rev. Dr. Butler’s Catechism - The Complete Catechism Series - Revised Copyright, Canada 1928.

On page 65 - 66 it states:

CHAPTER XXVI
The Seventh and Tenth Commandments
5. How do we sin against the Seventh Commandment?
(1) By stealing.
(2) By cheating
(3) By not giving back things found to the owner
(4) By not paying our debts.
(5) By damaging or destroying that which belongs to another. Deut. xxv, 13, 16; I Cor. vi, 13.

Now this seems self-explanatory. Many Arch Dioceses have declared bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy leaves debts unpaid.

How could the Arch Diocese do this, as it is a sin?
How could the Vatican allow this to happen and/or not bail them out and pay all debts?

Proof the RCC is not the True Church…

First, you’re missing something here. One of the purposes of bankruptcy law is to bring all of the creditors together to make sure every one of them has a say in the division of the debtor’s assets – something that is not possible when you’re facing civil suit after civil suit. It does not necessarily mean someone will be left out. You might also review Catholic teaching regarding bankruptcy; people who deliberately incur debts (e.g., spending the rent money on gambling) incur moral guilt for filing bankruptcy, while people forced into bankruptcy face less (or no) moral guilt. The dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy have done so because the demands of the lawsuits – which are not the same thing as actual judgments – exceed the dioceses’ net worth. So, under bankruptcy law, they are insolvent because the creditors’ claims exceed the dioceses’ assets. But now they can all be brought together to make sure that everyone gets treated fairly.

The dioceses in question did not go out and deliberately incur debts that they knew they couldn’t pay; they’re just getting sued for millions based on claims that go back 40 years or more – and many of the claims have no evidence of wrongdoing. So there’s not necessarily anything morally wrong with invoking the legal process. It’s just a way to bring all of the lawsuits together in one time and place.

(By the way; the Vatican can’t bail out individual dioceses. The Vatican’s entire 2006 budget was $307 million; the Los Angeles Archdiocese’s recent settlement alone – $660 million – was more than double that).

Meanwhile, back at the point of this thread, legal entities cannot sin. Only humans can sin. So, just like IBM or AT&T, the Catholic Church cannot sin, and neither can its various dioceses. Various individuals in the Church – including, sadly, some of its leaders – have sinned, but the Church itself cannot.

So your entire premise is incorrect.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

I think they should just as soon as all the other n-C communities (who don’t do near what the Catholic Church does for the poor) sell off all that they have and give it all to the poor…otherwise all I hear is Judas’ voice ringing down the centuries when he said…“Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” (see John 12 for the context)

This isn’t about all the good the the RCC does, but about the obligation to satisfy all debts owed.

The RCC instituted their hierarchy structure - the Vatican should make restitution. Period.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

First, you’re missing something here. One of the purposes of bankruptcy law is to bring all of the creditors together to make sure every one of them has a say in the division of the debtor’s assets – something that is not possible when you’re facing civil suit after civil suit. It does not necessarily mean someone will be left out. You might also review Catholic teaching regarding bankruptcy; people who deliberately incur debts (e.g., spending the rent money on gambling) incur moral guilt for filing bankruptcy, while people forced into bankruptcy face less (or no) moral guilt. The dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy have done so because the demands of the lawsuits – which are not the same thing as actual judgments – exceed the dioceses’ net worth. So, under bankruptcy law, they are insolvent because the creditors’ claims exceed the dioceses’ assets. But now they can all be brought together to make sure that everyone gets treated fairly.

The dioceses in question did not go out and deliberately incur debts that they knew they couldn’t pay; they’re just getting sued for millions based on claims that go back 40 years or more – and many of the claims have no evidence of wrongdoing. So there’s not necessarily anything morally wrong with invoking the legal process. It’s just a way to bring all of the lawsuits together in one time and place.

(By the way; the Vatican can’t bail out individual dioceses. The Vatican’s entire 2006 budget was $307 million; the Los Angeles Archdiocese’s recent settlement alone – $660 million – was more than double that).

Meanwhile, back at the point of this thread, legal entities cannot sin. Only humans can sin. So, just like IBM or AT&T, the Catholic Church cannot sin, and neither can its various dioceses. Various individuals in the Church – including, sadly, some of its leaders – have sinned, but the Church itself cannot.

So your entire premise is incorrect.

Yes good points.

Question. If Jesus had a civil suit filed against him…and a court upheld/ruled in favor of it…and he owned the Vatican and all the other buildings and paintings and property etc… do you think he would sell it to make restitution? Or keep it and have a debtor not be paid what they are owed.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Bankruptcy is a “man made thing.” Money is a man made thing. Monetary debt is a man made thing. It doesn’t make any sense at all to refuse a “man made” defense of a “man made” issue.

The words of our Lord come to mind, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” American bankruptcy law is based on our American understanding of commerce, debt, and finance.

Some Church authorities are simply awful businessmen. Some are dishonest. Some are lazy. Some are neglectful. Any part of a particular parish’s bankruptcy is the repsonsibility of its pastor and administrators. This is not a corporate sin, as you would suggest it should be.

Some Church authorities, on the other hand, are brilliant in the ways of finance and administration. They budget better than many households. They provide works of mercy for scores of poor and homeless, while meeting the spiritual needs of their flock. This is a function of good business sense and responsible stewardship.

In any case, if bankruptcy is your smoking gun, it doesn’t fly. Yes, not paying your debt is an objective evil. BUT, there are certain circumstances which reduce the culpability of any given individual/institution, especially in the case of bankruptcy.

Would it be easier for you if we provided a list of all the bad things that people do and you, in turn, could tell us which of these bad things proves that particular person/church is not a child of God and/or part of His Church?

I guess I am just trying to get concensus. According to the CCC, not paying debts is a transgression of the seventh commandment. This is according to the Catechism.

The Bible has a few words to say about ensuring your debts are paid.

If Jesus came back to earth today…would he sue(another man made thing) for wrongful death? No cause $$$ means nothing … and so do possessions so having possession, of any kind, while a debtor only gets so much for the dollar is wrong in my books. …so all debts should be paid in full.

 

[ncgolf]

Yes good points.

Question. If Jesus had a civil suit filed against him…and a court upheld/ruled in favor of it…and he owned the Vatican and all the other buildings and paintings and property etc… do you think he would sell it to make restitution? Or keep it and have a debtor not be paid what they are owed.

If he was Jesus … he wouldn’t have lost.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

The Church is allowed to use the Jusice system. The Vatican has no liabiltiy for what was done by an individual Priest or diocese. of course I know none of this matters as this thread is just anohter of you many “stalking horse” threads you use to bash the Church.

I’m sorry you feel that way about my threads. I thought that was the intent. To bring up issues that are debateable. Yes I committed sin - too whomever changed that title - I am a sinner.

The first thing Jesus will do when he returns is file a wrongful death suit in our legal system which his church is allowed to use! I think not.

Banckruptcy is wrong. Period. Anyway you hash it out someone who advanced credit in good faith of repayment will not get everything they are owed. No Jesus would not approve.

Society says bankruptcy is OK along with abortion, masturbation, adult pornography, polygamy(in some places), etc… doesn’t mean the church should use the ones that bail them out of trouble.

Truly - does everyone that is a RC here think that Jesus’ church would hide behind a man-made process to justify failure to repay? All along while the head office could sell off paintings, buildings, whathaveyou to pay out and off those debts?
No.

 

[JaneFrances]

I guess I am just trying to get concensus. According to the CCC, not paying debts is a transgression of the seventh commandment. This is according to the Catechism.

Okay, so you want to have a serious discussion about the Catechism, then. Great!

Here’s what the Catechism says:

Article 7: The Seventh Commandment
You shall not steal.

2408
The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

2409
Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.192

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation.

2410
Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just. A significant part of economic and social life depends on the honoring of contracts between physical or moral persons—commercial contracts of purchase or sale, rental or labor contracts. All contracts must be agreed to and executed in good faith.

2411
Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights. Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted. Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.

One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community, and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs.

In the case of certain dioceses, as well as particular individuals, a debt unpayed or paid only in part, due to a bankruptcy settlement is a case of civil law, not necessarily a sin.

Credit lenders understand that, although a borrower may borrow money on credit in good faith, there is reasonable risk. The contract between the parties helps to create certain criteria for repayment, but it does not in any way eliminate the risk to the lender or the unforeseen fault of the borrower. The contract is not the criteria for sin.

Thus, when a good faith borrower (one who borrowed an amount and intended to repay it according to the contract) can not repay a debt due to legitimate hinderance, it befalls the lender to assume the risk and settle the matter civilly. This is, in layman’s terms, called filing for bankruptcy.

And bankruptcy, though normally indicative of a debt not fully paid, is not a sin.

 

[JaneFrances]

The Bible has a few words to say about ensuring your debts are paid.

Some of those words are found in Deuteronomy 15:

The Year for Canceling Debts
1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.
7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Thus, the Lord himself saw fit to acknowledge that under certain circumstances there are debts that, though one should try to repay them, can not be repaid. Thus, the Lord God called upon the people of Israel, his chosen people, to forgive debts every seventh year.

This, too, by the way, is our understanding of Christ’s salvific mission. As St. Augustine explains, Christ Himself came to forgive the debt we could never pay. His atoning sacrifice is the ultimate in debt forgiveness and you never had to file any papers!

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Christ Himself came to forgive the debt we could never pay. His atoning sacrifice is the ultimate in debt forgiveness and you never had to file any papers!

Amen to that!

 

[Michael_Francis]

Question asked and answered.
This thread is now closed.