W
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
Certainly. *
But one truth does not negate other truths. Truth all goes together.
A person who dresses immodestly can be* responsible personally* for the sin of scandal…(ie for being a cause of lust).
The person who lusts due to her immodest dress is responsible for their sin of lust.
and we can note too
The person who *fraternally corrects *(in the manner noted above by Pope Benedict XVI) does an act of charity.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Also in addition to scandal …to leading another into sin (as Jesus tells us…temptations will come but woe to him by which they come…)
There are other ways one can be responsible for sins committed by others:
Catechism (issued by Pope John Paul II)
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
There are other ways one can be responsible for sins committed by others:
Catechism (issued by Pope John Paul II)
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.
K
Khalid
Guest
Exactly what I said in my first post, if in different words: that it comes from a disordered way of valuing oneself based on what you believe others see than as a human being qua child of God with innate rights and value (thus my quote of the American Constitution).
W
Walking_Home
Guest
“Scandal” – is subjective to the customs of time and place. A woman showing an ankle in times past – could be “accused” of causing “scandal” at that time – and that is no longer the case. And again – we are not to transfer the responsibility for our own sin (lust) – to another-- making the other the cause of our sin.
K
Khalid
Guest
No, he could very well judge the person to be immodest, and be within his duties - not his rights, but his duties. If he did not judge what he saw, he would be disobeying a commandment of the Lord. One does not need to be immaculate to point out sin and condemn it, and one need not condemn the person entire who sins, for the sin.
K
Khalid
Guest
You would sin by not judging/correcting, and remaining silent.
K
Khalid
Guest
Are you God or Christ or the Virgin? Immaculate and immune from sin? I didn’t think so. Your sanctimoniousness and willingness to judge so quickly and incorrectly while condemning its proper use in others - such as your statement about the hypothetical friend - is off-putting. Extremely so. Thou art not holier than all fallen men, but thou art holier than thou.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Scandal is when one leads another into sin. That is the sense used here by the Church and Moral theology.
We cannot transfer one meaning of a word for another.
It is not transferring the responsibility for ones sin to another to note that another person can be personally responsible for their own sin of causing another to lust.
Indeed there even other ways one can be responsible for sins committed by others:
Catechism (issued by Pope John Paul II who wrote the doc your quoting)
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.
“Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death”.
Now of course there are various degrees of “immodesty” and varying degrees of responsibility on the part of the immodest for the sins of others (who are of course personally responsible -there is not “transfer” of responsbility here).
(For a mortal sin of course one needs the three aspects of such)
W
Walking_Home
Guest
This would apply to being directly involved in theft – murder — same sex marriage— prostitution/strip clubs/porn.
Something for you to think about. By shifting/transferring the responsibility for lust onto a woman—in essense – it forms “protection” for the evil of lust in the one lusting.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such would apply as the CCC notes it applies…(the CCC is there speaking certain ways one can be responsible–they are general things)
B
Bookcat
Guest
As for the “shifting/transferring the responsibility for lust onto the woman” – there is no such shifting/transferring. None. None. None.
She is personally responsible for any sin on her part of immodesty or scandal.
And those who lust are responsible for their sin.
We cannot shift/transfer the responsibility for her sin to the men.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Walking_Home:
Are you God or Christ or the Virgin? Immaculate and immune from sin? I didn’t think so. Your sanctimoniousness and willingness to judge so quickly and incorrectly while condemning its proper use in others - such as your statement about the hypothetical friend - is off-putting. Extremely so. Thou art not holier than all fallen men, but thou art holier than thou.
I have never claimed to be God/Christ/our Blessed Mother. I am a sinner—willing to take responsibility for my own sins – and not transfer it to another.
B
Bookcat
Guest
As for the “shifting/transferring the responsibility for lust onto the woman” – there is no such shifting/transferring. None. None. None.
She is personally responsible for any sin on her part of immodesty or scandal.
And those who lust are responsible for their sin.
We cannot shift/transfer the responsibility for her sin to the men.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Walking_Home:
As for the “shifting/transferring the responsibility for lust onto the woman” – there is no such shifting/transferring. None. None. None.
She is personally responsible for any sin on her part of immodesty or scandal.
And those who lust are responsible for their sin.
We cannot shift/transfer the responsibility for her sin to the men.
Baloney – Its been happening for generations. It has happened here on this site – in the “modesty” threads. It’s happened when a woman is sexually harrassed – and someone puts blame on her – for what she wears. So please – don’t go around with the — “there is no such shifting/transferring”/None. None. None. It serves no purpose – but to protect the evil doers that make women scapegoats.
As I said prior —“Scandal” – is subjective to time and place.
B
Bookcat
Guest
*Modesty *is subject in part to time and place.
Leading another into sin -scandal- is a sin.
As to the rest…such is not the subject of this thread or the material of my posts. What I noted in the above posts is true and are the various aspects that are involved.
Could it happen that someone is unjustly “accused” of some sin etc etc?..sure. Is that a sin --yes it certainly can be.
But such is not the topic of the posts. Nor does it change that scandal and immodesty are sins.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
No matter how you spin it – Bookcat. You are making the woman responsible/shifting the blame – for a mans thoughts.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No “spin”
Pope John Paul II’s reminds us of the above “bolded text” (prior to being Pope but I imagine he said a number of things as Pope later). Jesus teaches that we can responsible for the sins of others. The Catechism notes we can sin by scandal and thus be responsible for others sins (and in other ways too).
Sure.
But such is NOT “shifting the blame” for a mans sinful thoughts.
(indeed they all speak as well to the sin of the man).
And for him to commit the mortal sin of lustful thoughts he needs to do so with full knowledge and complete consent (something only he can personally do).
But such does negate the fact that a woman (may) sin via her choice of clothing. That a person can sin in leading another into sin.
She is personally responsible for any sin on her part of immodesty or scandal.
And those who lust are responsible for their sin (even though others can have a kind of “responsibility” as well…such does not “transfer” the men’s responsibility away from the men -certainly not!)
We are not to shift/transfer the responsibility for her sin to the men.
B
Bookcat
Guest
PS: again there can be various degrees of potential sin…
But certainly if a person dresses in order to cause men to lust …well that is in the grave area.
But certainly if a person dresses in order to cause men to lust …well that is in the grave area.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
No “spin”
Pope John Paul II’s reminds us of the above “bolded text” (prior to being Pope but I imagine he said a number of things as Pope later). Jesus teaches that we can responsible for the sins of others. The Catechism notes we can sin by scandal and thus be responsible for others sins (and in other ways too).
Sure.
But such is NOT “shifting the blame” for a mans sinful thoughts.
(indeed they all speak as well to the sin of the man).
And for him to commit the mortal sin of lustful thoughts he needs to do so with full knowledge and complete consent (something only he can personally do).
But such does negate the fact that a woman (may) sin via her choice of clothing. That a person can sin in leading another into sin.
She is personally responsible for any sin on her part of immodesty or scandal.
And those who lust are responsible for their sin (**even though others can have a kind of “responsibility” as well…such does not **“transfer” the men’s responsibility away from the men -certainly not!)
We are not to shift/transfer the responsibility for her sin to the men.
“Modesty” and “Scandal” are subjective to time and place. What was “immodest” --“Scandalous” – 100, 200 years ago – is no longer the case. What is “immodest/scandalous” in one culture – does not hold true for another. Your play on words – does not change – that you still place responsibility on the woman.
- Status