Catholic Views

[goredskins1234]

Hey guys, I just wanted to see what you guys think of my position on a few things. I am Catholic, but I am at odds with the Church on a few topics.

One of them is mortal sin. The Church teaches that committing a mortal sin and dying before you go to confession will make you, most likely, go to hell. I, however, could not disagree more. What I’m trying to say is that I believe that a man (or a woman) is the “sum of his actions,” and that one mistake will not send you to hell, just like one good deed will not send you to heavan.

Take a man who, say, disagrees with the Catholic church, and thinks that using contraception is not wrong, but he goes on retreats with his church to help people in third world countries. Is this person not more worthy of heavan than a man who simply follows the Church doctrine to the letter? Or what about a man who has been exposed to Christianity, but is still another religion. He helps the people of an entire country have a life thats just a little bit better, dying for them in the process. I sure hope he is heavan bound, as the man I just described is Gandhi.

Basically, I think the Church puts too much emphasis on things such as contraception, masturbation, etc. I dont think its about things like that. I think its about, whether you be Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Athiest, Muslim, or whatever, being the one to stop and help an elderly couple change a tire on the highway when hundreds of other people driving by would not. Isn’t someone who would do something like this a better Catholic (and a better person), even if they have some vices such as the ones mentioned above, than a person who simply follows the Church doctrine word for word? Isn’t such a person more worthy of heavan?

 

[Paladin_V]

Well, first I’d like to note that, as far as I know, the Church does not actually say that any particular person is definitley in hell. It is not man’s place to judge whether someone is in mortal sin, but God’s. We can say that someone has committed a grave sin, but whether it is mortal or not is up to God. So, when we say that someone in mortal sin can’t go to heaven, it basically means that God, in His infinite justice, mercy, and wisdom, has judged that the person has completely cut off grace from their soul (i.e. they are in mortal sin) and thus cannot enter heaven. Remember, it is not God who puts a soul in hell, but the person who chooses it.

Also, I read an explanation once about the seeming harshness of someone living a good and holy life suddenly committing mortal sin at the end and going to hell. It seems rather harsh, but the reality is that their sin is so much more serious than someone who has lived a bad life and then converted near the end. They have been receiving graces to become holy their entire life and suddenly they have recjected and turned away from a lifetime of grace, without which they could not have done any good and holy acts.

While the Church does put emphasis on random acts of kindness, it is appropriate that the Church is extremely vocal about masturbation and contraception. These two issues are extremely destructive to the marital relationship and the persons themselves. These are two grave sins that destory the very foundation of society, a sacramental union and institution of God’s grace. Masturbation completely disorders the gift of self to another by using the gift of sexuality for self pleasure. Going wrong about sexuality is so much more serious than most other things in this world. In scripture, the first effect of disobedience to God was the realization of nakedness, the breakdown of sexual purity and unity.

Church doctrine and living the good life are not exculsive of each other, doctrine necessitates the good life. Church doctrine comes from Christ, who is Goodness and Love itself. If one follows all of the Church doctrine, this is the best possible thing; the head of the Church is Christ so following doctrine means following Christ. We are **required **to be **perfect **to enter heaven and that means following all doctrine and developing our spiritual lives to a comtemplative/mystical level.

 

[snhs]

Hey guys, I just wanted to see what you guys think of my position on a few things. I am Catholic, but I am at odds with the Church on a few topics.

One of them is mortal sin. The Church teaches that committing a mortal sin and dying before you go to confession will make you, most likely, go to hell. I, however, could not disagree more. What I’m trying to say is that I believe that a man (or a woman) is the “sum of his actions,” and that one mistake will not send you to hell, just like one good deed will not send you to heavan.

Take a man who, say, disagrees with the Catholic church, and thinks that using contraception is not wrong, but he goes on retreats with his church to help people in third world countries. Is this person not more worthy of heavan than a man who simply follows the Church doctrine to the letter? Or what about a man who has been exposed to Christianity, but is still another religion. He helps the people of an entire country have a life thats just a little bit better, dying for them in the process. I sure hope he is heavan bound, as the man I just described is Gandhi.

Basically, I think the Church puts too much emphasis on things such as contraception, masturbation, etc. I dont think its about things like that. I think its about, whether you be Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Athiest, Muslim, or whatever, being the one to stop and help an elderly couple change a tire on the highway when hundreds of other people driving by would not. Isn’t someone who would do something like this a better Catholic (and a better person), even if they have some vices such as the ones mentioned above, than a person who simply follows the Church doctrine word for word? Isn’t such a person more worthy of heavan?

Well that depends, the important thing to remember is that at the end of the day we as individuals can’t and shouldn’t even try to make judgments in this kind of thing.

Just think about a person who lives his whole life as a manifest heretic, perhaps he was baptised when he was a baby but has spent the rest of his life away from the Church. What if he were at the end of his life to have an epiphany and be martyred for the Faith? St Augustine lead a pretty dissolute life, St Paul went around persecuting Christians before his conversion. As for one mistake what if someone comes to the end of his life and publically denies the Church or the Real Presence, we might hope that God’s mercy will extend to forgiving him and that his culpability will be mitigated by circumstance, but at the end of the day we don’t know.

Who are we to decide who is more worthy? There are Saints and very holy people who have done the very thing you seem to be dismissing, “who simply follows the Church doctrine to the letter”. Blessed Imelda, for example, or Saint Tarcisius. There are people who have died before they’d have been old enough to go off to some third world country. There are others who have spent their whole life in one place, even one village, never going beyond it. Can you show me where in the Bible it says we are to go on retreats to help people in third world countries? It may be one way of putting into action the teachings of the Bible, but it is far from the only way and perhaps not even the best way of doing so.

That depends on how they perceive it. If any person were to see the truth of Catholicism and deny it or refuse to follow it then it would probably be different to someone who for whatever reason didn’t see it at all.

These are far more important than just ‘things’. The Church doesn’t just make up Her teachings willy nilly. There are very good reasons for having these teachings, and why they should be followed rather than dismissed or weighed up against things we might put more value on. You don’t think it’s about having respect for life at all it’s stages?

It’s very easy to pick and choose, for example you’ve highlighted a modern equivalent of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But why is it you choose to place that ahead of all of these other ‘things’, as you put it. How is it loving to deny the possibility of life, to interfere with the natural order and God’s will? You’ve also forgotten about removing the beam before dealing with the speck. It would be fairly easy for many people to hop on a plane and go to Malawi or another country in the developing world, often far easier in fact than dealing with some of the problems and vices they might face in their daily life. After all why expend the effort denying yourself something when you can get on a plane do a bit of charity work, get the gratification that comes from helping people, seeing their joy at the new school/well/community centre and everything works out well all round? In the Bible there’s another bit which deals with when people have already received their reward on earth they’ve already had it so they won’t get it in Heaven. Someone may become famous for doing humanitarian work, globetrotting around helping communities in the third world, maybe they’ll be famous internationally, or in their country or even only within their Diocese or Parish. But do you really think they are somehow doing better than someone who struggles daily with a vice to do God’s will/follow the teachings of His Church, or who has said ‘yes’ to a religious calling and spends they’re whole life working in the same monastery/convent?

If you want justification for your view I’m sure you’ll find it somewhere, it may be twisted and distorted beyond recognition from the fullness of the Church’s teachings, but maybe you can explain that away to yourself. However I don’t think you’ll find many who are willing to help you in perpetuating it.

 

[goredskins1234]

Thank you both for your responses. I wasn’t saying that I think these things are right, I was just saying that I believe that there should be more emphasis on things like just helping people, but you do make a valid point with every day vices. Thanks again, and God Bless.

 

[chicago]

I think that sometimes we place too much focus on a certain Scholastic objectivism in discussing such matters as concern grace.

We can’t earn heaven.

Sin is, plainly, living outside of relationship with Christ - which is all that saves us. In that sense, everything about the moral life (whether it be sexual norms or the exercise of charity and defense of justice) is ultimately subject not to what we do or don’t, but how faithful we are to the relationship and its growth. Infidelity separates us from God, simply.

But life is a dance. It is a give and take with growth and death. As such, there is much more nuance to the subject which is each human person and their individual journey on this earth and in relation to the Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[1234]

May I suggest that the moderators move this thread to a more appropriate venue.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hey guys, I just wanted to see what you guys think of my position on a few things. I am Catholic, but I am at odds with the Church on a few topics.

One of them is mortal sin. The Church teaches that committing a mortal sin and dying before you go to confession will make you, most likely, go to hell. I, however, could not disagree more. ?

if you want to disagree with Church teaching, why not find out what it is first. YOu have mis-stated. If you die unrepentant with mortal sin on your soul you will most likely go to hell. you left out that all important word. since you post on this forum I assume you are discerning a vocation. suggest you embark on a study of your faith before you consider trying to lead others to faith.

 

[blessedtoo]

It’s very easy to pick and choose, for example you’ve highlighted a modern equivalent of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But why is it you choose to place that ahead of all of these other ‘things’, as you put it. How is it loving to deny the possibility of life, to interfere with the natural order and God’s will? You’ve also forgotten about removing the beam before dealing with the speck. It would be fairly easy for many people to hop on a plane and go to Malawi or another country in the developing world, often far easier in fact than dealing with some of the problems and vices they might face in their daily life. After all why expend the effort denying yourself something when you can get on a plane do a bit of charity work, get the gratification that comes from helping people, seeing their joy at the new school/well/community centre and everything works out well all round? In the Bible there’s another bit which deals with when people have already received their reward on earth they’ve already had it so they won’t get it in Heaven. Someone may become famous for doing humanitarian work, globetrotting around helping communities in the third world, maybe they’ll be famous internationally, or in their country or even only within their Diocese or Parish. But do you really think they are somehow doing better than someone who struggles daily with a vice to do God’s will/follow the teachings of His Church, or who has said ‘yes’ to a religious calling and spends they’re whole life working in the same monastery/convent?

.

What outstanding insight. Yes, doing for one’s fellow man always provides a pay off of some kind. However, denying one’s own desires (a Buddhist teaching also, BTW) is infinitely less satisfying on the “feeling-good-about-yourself” meter, at least initially.

I would also add for the OP that the “good things” you’ve mentioned (stopping to help seniors change a tire) are primal human impulses - one has to be pretty “dead” spiritually to pass by in this scenario. But we, as Christians, are called to a higher form of goodness, one that is infused with supernatural grace. Being a good person in the context of societal norms is not terribly demanding. Being good in the context of heavenly reward asks a bit more of us.

I also wonder why we struggle so much with the “rules” of the Church. As a culture, we have far less trouble accepting regulations regarding everything from speed limits, safety belts, smoking areas, and other intrusive “rules”. We join gyms and accept, unquestioningly, that we must wipe off the equipment after using, observe the hours of operation, refrain from obnoxious behavior, etc. We join diet organizations and accept the rules on what to eat and don’t expect the group itself to change the rules. But when it comes to the Church, suddenly the rules are up for debate - somehow lacking and in need of our (name removed by moderator)ut.

Christ told his followers that their problem was “thinking like men”. We continue to fall into this trap. We see such a minuscule piece of the big picture yet we think we have unraveled the secret of life. If we join a Church, and we believe we have found the right Church, why do we lack such trust in Her wisdom? If it doesn’t make sense, isn’t the problem with OUR understanding?

 

[Galnextdoor]

God gave us rules in the church so that we could have an instruction manual on how to get to heaven, so to speak. The rules are not meant to punish us or keep us from having fun. They were created so that we may have peace in our heart and live happily with God in heaven. Helping others can be a self-gratifying action that has nothing to do with loving God.

I recommend you read the Theology of the Body by JPll so that you understand the whole reason the church focuses on sins of the flesh. You might also tune into “Created and Redeemed” on EWTN at 9:00 on Wednesday evening. There is also a book called Theology of the Body Simplified that has JPll’s radio addresses about the Theology of the Body.

FYI some birth control pills allow a baby to be conceived but cause a woman to menstruate and flush the baby out of the womb. This is murder.

Do you think that if someone murdered somebody, then stopped to help an old lady change a tire, that the changing of the tire should somehow mitigate the punishment due for the murder?

The priest in my church has often given homilies about the Good Samaritan and loving your neighbors. He also has talked about loving your enemies. Loving someone involves sacrificing and doing things for that person. Mother Teresa was the epitome of someone who did good for others, and she has been highly honored by the Church. The church does emphasize helping others as much as it talks about birth control and masturbation. The secular press just seems to find the latter two more interesting to report on.

Talking about mortal sin, which takes away God’s grace, as though it is on the same level as doing something nice for someone, which may get you some actual grace, is like asking why you can’t wipe up a flood with a tea towel. The damage caused by a mortal sin is enormous.

I’m not trying to be harsh, just honest.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Actually, Gandhi always was vehemently opposed to contraception, and masturbation, and all non-reproductive sexual activities as sin. Just thought I’d throw that out there…