Discarding Sins We Don't Like

[alphonsus1]

Why discard sins that we do not like? If you look at our Church’s history, it is precisely that: apologists disregard “pelvic morality.” If we do not like a sin, throw it out.

1. If we did not like that craniotomy abortions are intrinsically evil even to save a mothers life, then reconceptualize Catholic morality to permit it.
2. If we did not like that condoms are immoral in the case of preventing HIV, a violation of the principle of double effect, then reconceptualize Catholic morality to permit it.
3. If we do not like that a venial lie is intrinsically evil, even to save an entire nation, then reconceptualize Catholic morality to permit it.
4. If we did not like that sodomy is wrong, then contradict Denz. 2795, 3634, and 3638, and reconceptualize Catholic morality to say it is okay for heterosexuals before intercourse.
5. If we do not like that masturbation is wrong even to collect a sperm sample when testing for infertility, then reconceptualize Catholic morality to permit it.
6. If we do not like Denzinger 2795, that a wife who is on board with Catholic morality cannot cooperate on pain of death with condomistic intercourse, then throw out the theology of cooperation with evil. We never believed any of it anyways.
7. If we do not like the Church’s teaching that direct contraception is always immoral, throw out most uses of contraception and say it is only immoral dependent upon marital status.
8. If we do not like how bad a sin is, then downgrade it from mortal to venial. For example, “lust” is a mortal sin, which men potentially commit so many times that they cannot count the number of times that they commit this sin. Let us pretend that acts like priest abuse, murder, rape, abortion, etc, are worse sins overall (accounting for number of times you commit the sin) than lust.
9. If we do not like that adultery is wrong, then throw it out. Go promiscuity!
10. If we do not like that non-unitive sex is wrong, throw it out and permit selfish sex or orgasm outside of sexual intercourse.
11. If we do not like sins of omissions, then throw them out. I mean, sins of omission do not matter when considering an indirect abortion, do they?
12. If we do not like that contraception potentially has an abortion effect, pretend that the baby is merely a “clump of cells” and do not follow the logical conclusions of considering the baby as 100 percent human, equal to you or I.
13. If you do not like the principle of intrinsic evil, throw it out. Acts do not have their own intentionality independent of the intentions of the actor.
14. If you dislike Catholic teaching on homosexuality or women’s priests, throw it out. Who cares about all that infallible stuff anyways?

 

[Fauken]

Might I ask what agenda it is you’re running to post this? No well-catechized Catholic in their right mind would agree to pick and choose morality like ice cream flavors, so I imagine you have some other point behind this.

 

[Theresalux]

Perhaps a cafeteria Catholic might do this, and unfortunately I know a few people who are, but no Catholic solid in their faith would do this.

 

[alphonsus1]

The problem is that we have widespread rejection of the non-infallible Magisterium. Apologists are considered “loyal” to Church teaching, as long as they do not contradict the infallible Magisterium. That is the problem. Apologists should pledge loyalty to both the infallible and non-infallible Magisterium. Or at least, tell people when they are contradicting the non-infallible Magisterium.

 

[Fauken]

non-infallible Magisterium.

What would you define as the “non-fallible” Magisterum? Because everything you pretty much listed is not up for debate and has already been declared as immoral by the infallible Magisterium, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[alphonsus1]

Direct abortion in the case of Craniotomy is technically not infallible, but it 100 percent contradicts decrees issued by the Holy Office in the 1880s.

Condoms in the case of HIV is infallible.

Lying being intrinsically evil when a person does not have the “right to know” is not infallible, but part of the non-infallible Magisterium.

Sodomy as foreplay to intercourse contradicts the non-infallible Magisterium Denz. 2795, 3634, and 3638, but is not infallible.

Masturbation to collect sperm samples is technically not wrong infallibly, but contradicts the Magisterium nonetheless.

Cooperating with evil is infallible for number 6 with a wife cooperating with condoms.

Adultery is infallible, but liberal Catholics at National Catholic Reporter throw it out.

Non-unitive sex is something that needs to be developed further. We do not have clear guidance on some of these questions.

 

[zachrificemelord]

I’ve found that many new and unfaithful catholics “throw away” sins that seem unnesessary and become very picky with what they consider sins. I personally am very insistant that I sin as little as possible according to the bible. While I respect these people, I do not agree with the lifestyle and frankly find it quite immoral.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Non-unitive sex is something that needs to be developed further. We do not have clear guidance on some of these questions.

So…is it possible people just sincerely disagree with you, not that they’re cynically “throwing out” sins in bad faith?

 

[TheLittleLady]

The problem is that we have widespread rejection of the non-infallible Magisterium. Apologists are considered “loyal” to Church teaching, as long as they do not contradict the infallible Magisterium. That is the problem. Apologists should pledge loyalty to both the infallible and non-infallible Magisterium. Or at least, tell people when they are contradicting the non-infallible Magisterium

Do you have some studies or surveys, some evidence or examples that you wish to discuss or is this your personal opinion.

 

[ineedofmercy]

A small few of these I can understand annoying people
But the rest of it just seems like angry ramblings on a closet Protestant

Many Catholics do not like the fact that these things are sins and some don’t even have evil intentions for why they want to commit them
However they are still sins
Trust me I tried to argue for these to myself and I just see I am wrong at the end
Even if I don’t fully understand why

Hope this helps

 

[alphonsus1]

I try not to bring in specific apologists. If you want data of rejection of Church teaching, use the fact that 80 percent of people who identify as Catholic reject Humanae Vitae.

I have been trying to figure out how to avoid sins of calumny, reviling, and derision, so I prefer to simply give people the benefit of the doubt and not mention names. I just mention theological positions that are in error. So not “person Y says position X” but just “position X is in error.”

I have already been accused of “angry ramblings.” I admit, I was using a sarcastic tone to describe my distain for throwing out a particular list of sins. Perhaps I should walk on egg-shells even more in terms of what “tone” is permissible to not water down the Truth, but show charity and love at the same time.

I understand wanting something to not be a sin. I understand venting frustration. Emotions are not sins. But at the end of the day we will have to take up our crosses and give it everything we have!

To the poster who made a point about “sincerely disagreeing.” True, limited disagreement is permissible to the non-infallible Magisterium. Also, it might be impossible to deduce the Truth and more guidance is needed.

However, the decrees by the Holy Office are often astoundingly straightforward! They are often ruled in a black and white way, but people still disagree with them. That is what makes me angry and frustrated. For example, masturbation to collect sperm samples was ruled:

**Denz. 3684. Whether masturbation procured directly is permitted to obtain sperm, by which a contagious disease bIenorragia (gonorrhea) may be detected and, insofar as it can be done, cured.

Reply: In the negative.

Final point. I am unhappy because (A) I think theologians greatly overstep the bounds of dissent to the non-infallible Magisterium. (B) Theologians refuse to tell people when their opinions contradict the Magisterium and they present them as though they are facts.

 

[DeniseNY]

For a great part of my adult life I wasn’t a practicing Catholic, and I thought a lot like what you outline in the OP. Then, I returned to the Church and realized how misguided and sinful I was. The answer isn’t that the Church must change. We (in a general sense) must change.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If you want data of rejection of Church teaching, use the fact that 80 percent of people who identify as Catholic reject Humanae Vitae.

I will bet you a ham sandwich if you stood outside St Anyone Parish, USA this next Sunday and asked each adult who comes out if they know what “Humanae Vitae” is, more than 90% would give you a blank stare.

I’d be interested in the study/report.