Do people really go to Hell for masturbation and using birth control?

[AndyF]

Sailboat:

I hope not.

I agree actually. On the other hand, I can see the logic of the law. These organs were created for a specific purpose. I recall reading some psch books where sexual psycho patients experienced a lessening of libido through masturbation, thus deverting them from what would otherwise be a sexual crime. I think I read somewhere that the Church recognized the concepts of lesser evils, but can’t be sure of this.

Principles seems to take a back seat on occasion. On misusing created things, the lungs weren’t created to have smoke pumped into them 9 times a day(heavy smoker?) either. It’s effect short circuits the length of life God planned for the individual. Many priests went to their graves in grave sin it would seem. Nor is the liver designed to filter out alcohol, regardless if it’s a wedding, or a binge.

Birth control imposes a barrier on conception of course, and like masturbation, the intended purpose is blocked. My wife and I also used this for a good many years during our working life, and I wasn’t happy with it. I can honestly say we would have prefered to have children immediately, but there was no practical way we could. Again this fits into a lesser evil framework.

Context of the times I think plays a part. I can’t imagine what would be particularly worriesome that would prevent an OT couple from wanting children. The family situation is much more complex today with child subsidies in effect or not, babysitting at inappropriate places, heavy taxes,etc.

Maybe we are due for some relaxing of the rules such as what was allowed for the Jews when they were allowed to divorce. The Church could easily do this. They would bind on earth the rules, and they would be automatically bound in heaven. God allowed divorce because of their stubborness, ie: attitude. Perhaps BC could be allowed for a more justified reason, family planning. I would be entirely against post-conception prevention however, as the soul is already created.

Andy

 

[Neo_Canaan]

I’ve seen lots of threads here about people worried about masturbation and their immortal souls. I never see any ones asking the same about birth control, although I find it hard to believe that every single person at this site uses NFP, since the statistics are pretty dismil on adherence to that Catholic teaching by Catholics.

I just find it hard to believe that God would send someone to Hell for these sins. Yes, I think they are sins but I’ll tell you right here that my wife and I used birthcontrol for years after the birth of our son. Then my wife got interrested in NFP. It’s a healthier way to live, it’s good for your marriage, and it’s what the Church says to do.

As far as masturbation, why I’d say that probably most young men and a good number of young women do it, and alot of adults do too. I’m not saying it’s not a sin, but I find it hard to believe that you’re going to Hell under any circumstances for doing it.

Do you think people really go to Hell for these things?

YUP

 

[setter]

Sailboat:

I hope not.

I agree actually. On the other hand, I can see the logic of the law. These organs were created for a specific purpose. I recall reading some psch books where sexual psycho patients experienced a lessening of libido through masturbation, thus deverting them from what would otherwise be a sexual crime. I think I read somewhere that the Church recognized the concepts of lesser evils, but can’t be sure of this.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is applicable only where there is no moral choice available.

Principles seems to take a back seat on occasion. On misusing created things, the lungs weren’t created to have smoke pumped into them 9 times a day(heavy smoker?) either. It’s effect short circuits the length of life God planned for the individual. Many priests went to their graves in grave sin it would seem. Nor is the liver designed to filter out alcohol, regardless if it’s a wedding, or a binge.

Addiction lessens culpability.

Birth control imposes a barrier on conception of course, and like masturbation, the intended purpose is blocked. My wife and I also used this for a good many years during our working life, and I wasn’t happy with it. I can honestly say we would have prefered to have children immediately, but there was no practical way we could. Again this fits into a lesser evil framework.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is applicable only where there is no moral choice available.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (CCC)

Context of the times I think plays a part. I can’t imagine what would be particularly worriesome that would prevent an OT couple from wanting children. The **family situation is much more complex today with **child subsidies in effect or not, babysitting at inappropriate places, heavy taxes,etc.

The context can never render a *moral evil * as a morally licit choice:

1755 A *morally good *act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The *object of the choice *can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. (CCC)

Maybe we are due for some relaxing of the rules such as what was allowed for the Jews when they were allowed to divorce. The Church could easily do this. They would bind on earth the rules, and they would be automatically bound in heaven. God allowed divorce because of their stubborness, ie: attitude. Perhaps BC could be allowed for a more justified reason, family planning. I would be entirely against post-conception prevention however, as the soul is already created.

Andy

The “rules” are based on the unchanging principles for Catholic morality. Besides, Jesus ushered in a higher standard of morality based on the interior law of grace. The solution is not to lower the standards to accommodate selfishness and sin preference, rather to raise the standard and expect the grace of God to be there for the faithful. It is called the doctrine of the Cross, as in dying to self that one may have life eternal.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’ve seen lots of threads here about people worried about masturbation and their immortal souls. I never see any ones asking the same about birth control, although I find it hard to believe that every single person at this site uses NFP, since the statistics are pretty dismil on adherence to that Catholic teaching by Catholics.

I just find it hard to believe that God would send someone to Hell for these sins. Yes, I think they are sins but I’ll tell you right here that my wife and I used birthcontrol for years after the birth of our son. Then my wife got interrested in NFP. It’s a healthier way to live, it’s good for your marriage, and it’s what the Church says to do.

As far as masturbation, why I’d say that probably most young men and a good number of young women do it, and alot of adults do too. I’m not saying it’s not a sin, but I find it hard to believe that you’re going to Hell under any circumstances for doing it.

Do you think people really go to Hell for these things?

The final resting place of souls is the exclusive perogative of God. Frankly, I think too much consideration of sins is about the question “will I/he/she be condemned or not” or essentially in the realm of bargaining with God or betting on God’s mercy. In the first case, we assume we have something to bargain with. In the second, making presumption about that which is the exclusive perogative of God.

What we should focus on are as follows:

1. God freely chose to give us our life as a gift of love. We owe Him everything.
2. God calls us to be Holy. Everything we do that separates from Him diminishes our Holiness and makes us less that what He has called us to be. This failure in pursuit of Holiness should cause us to be contrite, desirous of forgiveness and make us resolve to reform and pursue Holiness with greater vigor.

If we do this and fully trust in God, we will also be prepared to accept whatever final destination God determines is just. I think this is the lesson of Job who lost everything and rather than questioning God responded with “Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back again. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!”

 

[setter]

The final resting place of souls is the exclusive perogative of God. Frankly, I think too much consideration of sins is about the question “will I/he/she be condemned or not” or essentially in the realm of bargaining with God or betting on God’s mercy. In the first case, we assume we have something to bargain with. In the second, making presumption about that which is the exclusive perogative of God.

What we should focus on are as follows:

1. God freely chose to give us our life as a gift of love. We owe Him everything.
2. God calls us to be Holy. Everything we do that separates from Him diminishes our Holiness and makes us less that what He has called us to be. This failure in pursuit of Holiness should cause us to be contrite, desirous of forgiveness and make us resolve to reform and pursue Holiness with greater vigor.

If we do this and fully trust in God, we will also be prepared to accept whatever final destination God determines is just. I think this is the lesson of Job who lost everything and rather than questioning God responded with “Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back again. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!”

Agreed, but what many folks seem to struggle with is that choosing sin involves an active, individual, personal choice; and choosing love over sin involves an active, individual, personal choice, but by the grace of God.

The New Testament is filled with action verbs of being called to actively desire, seek and choose God over sin, as our ultimate rsting place is determined by the choices we makes in this life.

“In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so are we in this world.” 1 John 4: 17

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7: 13-14

“Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” **Matt. 7: 7 **

 

[patches]

I have often heard we die as we live. I think that is mostly true. The position you are trying to get across is a common one. I see your point, but I think it is mistaken. One mortal sin is enough to merit hell no matter how good we may have lived before we did it. That one sin is freely chosen and freely rejecting God. It is no small matter. That is what we are missing here.

It is all a choice and I think it is a fair choice. Not easy, but fair.

 I respectfully disagree.  That a lifetime of merit and faithfulness will be wiped out for certain in a single moment of weakness just doesn't add up for me.  While I accept that it is certainly *possible* to "reject God" in a single act of the will, I do not believe it is *necessarily* so in every case of serious sin. Is it your position that that mortal sins *always* present a clear choice between accepting and rejecting God?  If you believe that is the case, then I can understand your view, but I'm not sure that kind of choice is always so clear. 

  It also may well be that our positions are closer than they appear.  Certainly what one considers "full consent of the will" is somewhat of a wild card in this, and also what constitutes a "grave" a matter may be is likewise not always completely clear (to the subject, not objectively) in all instances. Throw the presence or absence of perfect contrition into the mix.....

 I think my position does seem to be supported in the revelation of Divine Mercy to St. Faustina.   I can appreciate your position, though, and I'm sure you'll agree that it's very good that the Lord, who very name is mercy, is making the call.

 

[AndyF]

setter:

Thank you setter for your informed information.

1. A *morally good *act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.

Since Christ stated he did not come to abolish the law (Mat 5,17), and guided by our unchanging principles of morality, could you justify the allowance for divorce based on the three criteria oulined in 1755?

Jesus ushered in a higher standard of morality based on the interior law of grace.

Interesting. Can you expand on this in context of the divorce law?

In regards to your last paragraph, it begs a question. The decision to allow divorce was allowed on the bases to satisfy desires of the masses, and in this we find a case for collective selfishness. Jesus states it was allowed on the bases that they obstinately desired it, ie: it was pressed, and God relented. 

How can permission granted out of the desire of an evil born out of a stubborn mass of people, be of a higher standard than a permission granted to satisfy the desire to allow it for better family planning, especially since the desired end is perceived for the good of the family? It would seem the reverse would be true.

Curious though, but I have never considered family planning a
selfish act. I could if the active word wasn’t family. Not much is not considered family planning in the unital society of the family.

Just a thought.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

setter:

One is condemned if they gradually over time or in a single act sever their saving [sanctifying grace] relationship with God.

There is no point in time that man can say he is condemned while still in exile, except in the case of the unforgivable sin, and even then penance can reinstate the individual. While in exile, there are two points in time where he can definitley say he is saved, and that is at Baptism and at the reception of the Sacrament of Penance in absolution for a sincere confession.

Being the merciful God that you state, that gives hope to the suicider,blasphemer,atheist and anyone we are tempted to add to a list. We can never know all the extenuating circumstances an individual would have in his favor.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Again, man does not establish or set the standard for God’s justice. The standard remains the same–God’s perfect justice based on the immutable and absolute truth of His love.

The decision to combine the two was made by the Holy Spirit when it entered in covenant with man. The Perfect justice of God recognized in that union the imperfect justice of man, and a contract on the precept that whatever is *bound on earth is bound in heaven *became in effect. So the conception of a bound on earth democratic system of justice and all that involves was initiated and sanctioned by God, as He would have known it’s immediate(then, not implemented) and future(now) benefits prior to the contract.

As it is now, man monitors and continually inspects his earthly systems applied to him, and checks for discriminatory double standards, and since he is the object of his system of judgement, it is universally accepted he has a direct interest on how it is applied and why outcomes were decided, and desires evidence of proof of it’s just machinery, while he lives and not only when it is applied to him. He has a vested interest in those receiving punishment, and promises to watch for evidence that he was sent there wrongly, and God saw how this was good prior to the covenant, and the Church today recognizes this as well. Man’s principles that every aware being requires evidence of a working fair justice system was accepted, even if man had not yet understood it’s more perfect future systems.

It is very insensitive, *as we bound*, to expect any aware being to accept that another being will judge him, without witness, without public(spiritual/physical) display of evidence, and with no recourse to defend himself or present an argument in view of his peers, or members of his species on a jury, or become part of the decision making system. He is to accept at face value that if he burns forever in eternal damnation, it was a just system, Himself only, that sent him there.

It is normal for any being to hesitate, and to absorb the full impact of all of this horror. Some would like to say they are simply being processed, and that would seem to be, evidence one article of the covenant is conveniently being ignored, ie: the joint administration of Justice.

He would wonder what earth shattering Revelation would be breached if man saw first hand the justice applied to every individual and the circumstances that put him there. He would think that it could only further glorify God, in the revelation of the facts, as he now sees the true justice, and every one being a perfect sentence. But in this world where everything is being tested, even Love, every thought, every doubt, there is nowhere to turn, but to eat again our Soylent Green, and conform.

So putting a poster down just because he relates in so many words the awareness of man’s precarious position could indeed be part of the test, and will perhaps gain us more points with God, and we hope He is looking when we do so. But we should all remember our hearts and minds cannot be sanctuary either, as we are simply objects of a process.
Andy

 

[AndyF]

Orionthehunter:

What since the covenant with the Holy Spirit has changed since our new partnership, if no articles were presented by Him. Can we not make a presumption that what we bind here has a contractual effect?

1. God freely chose to give us our life as a gift of love. We owe Him everything.

Some would have prefered to have the option knowing what the options are for a destination, and not knowing if one would succeed or not, and what objects presented obsticals that will come.

1. God calls us to be Holy. Everything we do that separates from Him diminishes our Holiness and makes us less that what He has called us to be. This failure in pursuit of Holiness should cause us to be contrite, desirous of forgiveness and make us resolve to reform and pursue Holiness with greater vigor.

As it applies to the entity man, but of the other entity also is in God’s domain, and who is also a recognized responsible decision making form, will never see the rewards collectively of what it reaps in the afterlife.

Andy

 

[fix]

I respectfully disagree. That a lifetime of merit and faithfulness will be wiped out for certain in a single moment of weakness just doesn’t add up for me.

In all respect I think part of the misunderstanding is using terms like weakness here. We will not lose salvation simply because of a weakness. It is a deliberate choice to reject God, often through particular concrete actions that are evil.

While I accept that it is certainly possible to “reject God” in a single act of the will, I do not believe it is necessarily so in every case of serious sin.

That is why I quoted the encyclical. It says:

…In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made “a free self-commitment to God”.113 With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses “sanctifying grace”, “charity” and “eternal happiness”.114 As the Council of Trent teaches, “the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin”.115…
Veritatis splendor

Is it your position that that mortal sins always present a clear choice between accepting and rejecting God? If you believe that is the case, then I can understand your view, but I’m not sure that kind of choice is always so clear.

The last pope spoke to that assertion here:

…Likewise, it would be hard to accept that man is able, in a brief lapse of time, to sever radically the bond of communion with God and afterwards be converted to him by sincere repentance. The gravity of sin, they maintain, ought to be measured by the degree of engagement of the freedom of the person performing an act, rather than by the matter of that act…

… “care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of *‘fundamental option’ — *as is commonly said today — against God”, seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. "For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently, *the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts. …

*The separation of fundamental option from deliberate choices of particular kinds of behaviour, disordered in themselves or in their circumstances, which would not engage that option, thus involves a denial of Catholic doctrine on *mortal sin: *“With the whole tradition of the Church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way, in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act of disobedience to God’s commandments in a grave matter”.118…
Veritatis splendor

It also may well be that our positions are closer than they appear. Certainly what one considers “full consent of the will” is somewhat of a wild card in this, and also what constitutes a “grave” a matter may be is likewise not always completely clear (to the subject, not objectively) in all instances. Throw the presence or absence of perfect contrition into the mix…

I agree. Mortal sin must be correctly defined.

I think my position does seem to be supported in the revelation of Divine Mercy to St. Faustina. I can appreciate your position, though, and I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s very good that the Lord, who very name is mercy, is making the call.

Faustina’s position and the Pope’s are the same.

 

[fix]

Since Christ stated he did not come to abolish the law (Mat 5,17), and guided by our unchanging principles of morality, could you justify the allowance for divorce based on the three criteria oulined in 1755?

Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and made known to man through revelation. We distinguish between the Old Law, contained in the Pentateuch, and the New Law, which was revealed by Jesus Christ and is contained in the New Testament. The Divine Law of the Old Testament, or the Mosaic Law, is commonly divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral precepts…

It has always been freely admitted by Christians that the Mosaic Law is an imperfect institution; still Christ came not to destroy it but to fulfil and perfect it. We must bear in mind that God, the Creator and Lord of all things, and the Supreme Judge of the world, can do and command things which man the creature is not authorized to do or command…

With special safeguards annexed to it Moses adopted the Divine dispensation on account of the hardness of heart of the Jewish people. Neither polygamy nor divorce can be said to be contrary to the primary precepts of nature. The primary end of marriage is compatible with both. But at least they are against the secondary precepts of the natural law: contrary, that is, to what is required for the well-ordering of human life. In these secondary precepts, however, God can dispense for good reason if He sees fit to do so. In so doing He uses His sovereign authority to diminish the right of absolute equality which naturally exists between man and woman with reference to marriage. In this way, without suffering any stain on His holiness, God could permit and sanction polygamy and divorce in the Old Law.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm

 

[setter]

setter:

Thank you setter for your informed information.

 

[setter]

The decision to combine the two was made by the Holy Spirit when it entered in covenant with man. The Perfect justice of God recognized in that union the imperfect justice of man, and a contract on the precept that whatever is *bound on earth is bound in heaven *became in effect. So the conception of a bound on earth democratic system of justice and all that involves was initiated and sanctioned by God, as He would have known it’s immediate(then, not implemented) and future(now) benefits prior to the contract.

God did not send His only begotten Son Jesus to establish and sanction a “democratic system of justice”.

As it is now, man monitors and continually inspects his earthly systems applied to him, and checks for discriminatory double standards, and since he is the object of his system of judgement, it is universally accepted he has a direct interest on how it is applied and why outcomes were decided, and desires evidence of proof of it’s just machinery, while he lives and not only when it is applied to him. He has a vested interest in those receiving punishment, and promises to watch for evidence that he was sent there wrongly, and God saw how this was good prior to the covenant, and the Church today recognizes this as well. Man’s principles that every aware being requires evidence of a working fair justice system was accepted, even if man had not yet understood it’s more perfect future systems.

The Church is not a human or earthly institution. It is founded on the person of Jesus Christ who is its head and guided by the Holy Spirit, and given the gift and assurance of infallibility in teaching matters of faith and morals.

It is very insensitive, *as we bound*, to expect any aware being to accept that another being will judge him, without witness, without public(spiritual/physical) display of evidence, and with no recourse to defend himself or present an argument in view of his peers, or members of his species on a jury, or become part of the decision making system. He is to accept at face value that if he burns forever in eternal damnation, it was a just system, Himself only, that sent him there.

It is based on a knowing faith and trust in a loving God, our heavenly Father.

It is normal for any being to hesitate, and to absorb the full impact of all of this horror. Some would like to say they are simply being processed, and that would seem to be, evidence one article of the covenant is conveniently being ignored, ie: the joint administration of Justice.

He would wonder what earth shattering Revelation would be breached if man saw first hand the justice applied to every individual and the circumstances that put him there. He would think that it could only further glorify God, in the revelation of the facts, as he now sees the true justice, and every one being a perfect sentence. But in this world where everything is being tested, even Love, every thought, every doubt, there is nowhere to turn, but to eat again our Soylent Green, and conform.

I believe that Catholics would be a whole lot more sober and vigilient in following the heart of the law if this awesome reality was a waking and walking part of each day’s journey toward judgment and our eternal dwelling place.

So putting a poster down just because he relates in so many words the awareness of man’s precarious position could indeed be part of the test, and will perhaps gain us more points with God, and we hope He is looking when we do so. But we should all remember our hearts and minds cannot be sanctuary either, as we are simply objects of a process.

Andy

Yes, reality can feel like a put down; but the only thing being offended is one’s preconceived and distorted notion of God’s infinite justice and mercy made manifest through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[AndyF]

That brings me full circle to my main post where I wrote that I could not see where an equivalent dispensation could not be made with respect to us. A family plans to have junior at a time when the war is over and in peacetime, how can this ordering of the human family, be less justified than the correction to satiate sexual desires. If the rulebook is tossed out, why not allow for it in these modern times.?

We must bear in mind that God, the Creator and Lord of all things, and the Supreme Judge of the world, can do and command things which man the creature is not authorized to do or command…

That goes without saying, but we are obligated to learn from His Devine Perfection, and that is where the paradox lies.

One could say “I have learned conduct from this case where that rule applied, and I have learned conduct from that case where that rule applied”, but when rules no longer apply based on a justfication, all factors remaining equal, then that leaves everyone with the impression that “God is not consistant in anything, as Alah does what Alah wills”, to put it in the Quranic sense. Adhering to rules and having confidence in them also contributes to “the well order of human life”.

If that is so, what static Tenet along with it’s metaphoric soul, intrinsic good, can be a reliable stability in a life of chaos and exile? If a rule can be Proclaimed to be intrinsically wrong in the next second to remove it’s restrictive barrier, are we to wipe clean the slate and throw away the belief that consistancy exists? The lesson learned is that everything is dynamic and relative. (Relativity in it’s proper use of course.)

There are many variations of conclusions every person could make in this fiasco. Love and any other consistant factor in our relation with God suddenly becomes another variable element in this inconsistant world. If we are loved to the maximum, can that be counted on to be consistant? The consistant and predictable type of lean judgements metted out to mortally sinful collectives makes even this suspect.

As regards to the Church, it is commendable on how it is determined to teach and save as many as possible and ensure adherence to the law, and it does an exceptional job of this. But it possess by the Authority of the Holy Spirit a very powerful credential never used. It can also make a case for the necessities of man, and the Holy Spirit would allow what it desires inoffensively. It can become the new Moses for our time addressing situations unique to our modern world, and act as a representative for us as did Moses for the Hebrews.

Andy

 

[setter]

setter:

Being the merciful God that you state, that gives hope to the suicider,blasphemer,atheist and anyone we are tempted to add to a list. We can never know all the extenuating circumstances an individual would have in his favor.

Andy

True, I am not compiling any list – that is God’s task alone.

My common sense adage is “buyer beware”. Better to err on the side of caution than to spend eternity on a presumption.

 

[setter]

That brings me full circle to my main post where I wrote that I could not see where an equivalent dispensation could not be made with respect to us. A family plans to have junior at a time when the war is over and in peacetime, how can this ordering of the human family, be less justified than the correction to satiate sexual desires. If the rulebook is tossed out, why not allow for it in these modern times.?

Who is tossing out what rule book? I believe that your persistent conjectures without returning to the foundation, i.e., deposit of faith, has led you far astray and off the bedrock of authoritative Church teaching in matters of faith and morals in search of that elusive (and non-existent) “exception to the rule”. There are no moral exceptions to natural and revealed moral law as brought to completion in and through the person of Jesus Christ, the head and foundation of the Church.

That goes without saying, but we are obligated to learn from His Devine Perfection, and that is where the paradox lies.

One could say “I have learned conduct from this case where that rule applied, and I have learned conduct from that case where that rule applied”, but when rules no longer apply based on a justfication, all factors remaining equal, then that leaves everyone with the impression that “God is not consistant in anything, as Alah does what Alah wills”, to put it in the Quranic sense. Adhering to rules and having confidence in them also contributes to “the well order of human life”.

If that is so, what static Tenet along with it’s metaphoric soul, intrinsic good, can be a reliable stability in a life of chaos and exile? If a rule can be Proclaimed to be intrinsically wrong in the next second to remove it’s restrictive barrier, are we to wipe clean the slate and throw away the belief that consistancy exists? The lesson learned is that everything is dynamic and relative. (Relativity in it’s proper use of course.)

There are many variations of conclusions every person could make in this fiasco. Love and any other consistant factor in our relation with God suddenly becomes another variable element in this inconsistant world. If we are loved to the maximum, can that be counted on to be consistant? The consistant and predictable type of lean judgements metted out to mortally sinful collectives makes even this suspect.

The New Testament era and commandments of Christ take and fulfil all precidents of the Old Testament. Your appeal to OT exceptions do not apply to the Church today.

“You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, …[48] You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matt. 5: 38-44, 48

As regards to the Church, it is commendable on how it is determined to teach and save as many as possible and ensure adherence to the law, and it does an exceptional job of this. But it possess by the Authority of the Holy Spirit a very powerful credential never used. It can also make a case for the necessities of man, and the Holy Spirit would allow what it desires inoffensively. It can become the new Moses for our time addressing situations unique to our modern world, and act as a representative for us as did Moses for the Hebrews.

Andy

The Church speaks and teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals even though it rarely finds the need to formally define a teaching as infallible.

The Church has no basis or reason to “become the new Moses” as it has the person of Jesus Christ at it’s helm (and Mary riding shotgun). The Church regularly does apply and clarify the principles of Catholic morality to the pressing and challenging and current (“unique”) situations confronting believers and personal preferences in our modern world.

 

[AndyF]

God did not send His only begotten Son Jesus to establish and sanction a “democratic system of justice”.

He sent His begotten Son to restore His friendship with man, and to establish the institution of his Church along with it’s Authority, and in this process the Holy Spirit played a key part. The Covenant, thus established, gave the necessary credentials to the Church to act in God’s behalf. The Church monitors man’s societal an individual interactions and guides him and sanctions or disaproves of the endeavors of his institutions. In this particular, the Institution of Justice, the democratic system is approved.

The key point is that the recognized covenant as it applies to man’s justice, and all that would entail, is sanctioned by God.

The Church is not a human or earthly institution. It is founded on the person of Jesus Christ who is its head and guided by the Holy Spirit, and given the gift and assurance of infallibility in teaching matters of faith and morals.

Morals: The democratic justice system of the west and it’s methods and procedures are found moral and sanctioned by the Church, and thus bound in heaven. If this were not so, countless Bulls and Decrees would have revealed the plight of an oppressed west.
Faith: calls for the obligation to the Authority of God, and specifically to the obeying the laws of man and his authority to do so.

[QOTE]I believe that Catholics would be a whole lot more sober and vigilient in following the heart of the law if this awesome reality was a waking and walking part of each day’s journey toward judgment and our eternal dwelling place.

Put simply, if you don’t conform you perish. Some may feel this is a “every man for himself” situation.

It is based on a knowing faith and trust in a loving God, our heavenly Father.

How much of your conformity is based on the purpose of self preservation, and how much is based on blind trust and love of God.? (You don’t have to answer.)

Do you fault someone who, aware of his state in this existance is simply motivated to exist and not suffer pain?

Yes, reality can feel like a put down; but the only thing being offended is one’s preconceived and distorted notion of God’s infinite justice and mercy made manifest through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Your too kind, but let us be frank. I wonder if it needs to be preconceived or distorted, nor if it needs to be a notion. It risks nothing to reveal the process, and would be in conformance with the promise of the Holy Spirit, unless of course there is something that should be hidden from us. It’s advantage would be awesome. Sin would be a rare occurance, and the Glory to God would come in a flood. My guess is that it is not because it would make the scientific test more easily passed. No, there is nothing more mysterious than the workings of Devine Justice, and that is one category man depends on to be open to inspection, if ever there is one that should.

Andy

i

 

[fix]

…Put simply, if you don’t conform you perish. Some may feel this is a “every man for himself” situation.

How much of your conformity is based on the purpose of self preservation, and how much is based on blind trust and love of God.? (You don’t have to answer.)

Do you fault someone who, aware of his state in this existance is simply motivated to exist and not suffer pain?

Your too kind, but let us be frank. I wonder if it needs to be preconceived or distorted, nor if it needs to be a notion. It risks nothing to reveal the process, and would be in conformance with the promise of the Holy Spirit, unless of course there is something that should be hidden from us. It’s advantage would be awesome. Sin would be a rare occurance, and the Glory to God would come in a flood. My guess is that it is not because it would make the scientific test more easily passed. No, there is nothing more mysterious than the workings of Devine Justice, and that is one category man depends on to be open to inspection, if ever there is one that should.

Andy

If I am reading your posts correctly it seems you want to point out that the law is a burden and those who point out the importance of obeying the law are placing an undue burden on others?

 

[setter]

The Church monitors man’s societal an individual interactions and guides him and sanctions or disaproves of the endeavors of his institutions. In this particular, the Institution of Justice, the democratic system is approved.

The key point is that the recognized covenant as it applies to man’s justice, and all that would entail, is sanctioned by God

Morals: The democratic justice system of the west and it’s methods and procedures are found moral and sanctioned by the Church, and thus bound in heaven. If this were not so, countless Bulls and Decrees would have revealed the plight of an oppressed west.
Faith: calls for the obligation to the Authority of God, and specifically to the obeying the laws of man and his authority to do so.

Do you have any source citations for this assertion/understanding of yours? I would be interested in learning more as it is not my understanding that the man constructed and version of western justice is sanctioned implicitly or explicitly by God.

I believe that Catholics would be a whole lot more sober and vigilient in following the heart of the law if this awesome reality was a waking and walking part of each day’s journey toward judgment and our eternal dwelling place.

Put simply, if you don’t conform you perish. Some may feel this is a “every man for himself” situation.

Its about personal choice for God or sin, and being man or woman enough to face the music of divine judgment for one’s informed and enlightened (or feigned irgnorance) choices. God founded a Church on the sure foundation of Jesus Christ, not a bunch of isolated, self-reliant individuals (a Western ethos) left to their own devises.

"Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” Mark 10: 27

How much of your conformity is based on the purpose of self preservation, and how much is based on blind trust and love of God.? (You don’t have to answer.)

Both.

Do you fault someone who, aware of his state in this existance is simply motivated to exist and not suffer pain?

I would shudder at the prospect of being in one’s shoes at the time of their personal judgment if they made choices based on the determining criteria of “motivated to exist and not suffer pain.”.

Your too kind, but let us be frank. I wonder if it needs to be preconceived or distorted, nor if it needs to be a notion. It risks nothing to reveal the process, and would be in conformance with the promise of the Holy Spirit, unless of course there is something that should be hidden from us. It’s advantage would be awesome. Sin would be a rare occurance, and the Glory to God would come in a flood. My guess is that it is not because it would make the scientific test more easily passed. No, there is nothing more mysterious than the workings of Devine Justice, and that is one category man depends on to be open to inspection, if ever there is one that should.

Andy

Jesus made it quite clear there is nothing hidden or mysterious about the demands of faithful discipleship and the justice of God.