I guess I need to be more clear.The Jimmy Carter sin (lust in your heart). This is actually a great opportunity to distinguish a Catholic vs. a non-Catholic view of sin. Many non-Catholics don’t distinguish sin by their gravity. For this reason, Jimmy essentially considered his thoughts equal to as if he had actually had sex w/ her.
This is not a Catholic view. We understand that we are body, mind, and spirit. No matter what evil we might think in our minds, it is not as grave as if we act on them. In fact, the Church talks about it being redemptive when we resist our thoughts and not act on these thoughts. It is this resistance that mitigates the gravity.
Additionally, I find your extreme example impossible. If this man had made a good confession, I can’t imagine how without other sin building up upon him he could make a full knowledge and full consent rejection of God just moments after confession. I think that mortal sin becomes possible when we allow venial sin to so damage our relationship with God that one has the temerity to commit a mortal sin.
A man can commit adultery in his heart and that is a mortal sin.ARTICLE 9
THE NINTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is your neighbor’s.299Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.300
The Holy Spirirt does work with the temporal govering bodies and human institutions of justice to assist in bringing about a semblance of God’s perfect justice.Yes. The Church tells us this data is fact, so we will need to respect what it says. See references to the Pentecost.
Do you disagree with the Holy Spirit’s portion of the covenant where it sanctions, thus binding in heaven, by evidence of our Church’s decision of agreement with, and approval of, our Democratic System of Justice.?
Do you disagree that the Holy Spirit promised to Bind in heaven whatever the Church binds on earth? Specifically, if the Church allows in principle man’s democratic system of justice, do you disagree that this should not be bound in heaven.? Do you recall any addendum wording in scripture by the Holy Spirit that states that this case is an exception?
Do you feel the Church finds morally wrong, by authority of our system of democratic justice, for man to monitor his system, to have evidence of the mechanism of justice in full view for his perusal, to be allowed his day in court, in front of a jury, and be allowed to present his case, along with evidence, and have the full instument of the court at his disposal?
Based on the sound devine infallible reasoning thus outlined, is it unreasonable to desire a system of Justice similar to ours applied to us in our final judgement?
Andy
I do not believe our Church teaches equality of sins or automatic salvation or condemnation based on them all being of equal gravity. Both of those concepts are extremly Protestant, which has an all or nothing approach to salvation, with all sin being equal in it’s ability to condemn us to Hell, and salvation is considered assured, when accepted on their specific terms.I guess I need to be more clear.
A man can commit adultery in his heart and that is a mortal sin.
Are you saying it cannot happen quickly?
The CC teaches mortal sin causes loss of sanctifying grace as I posted several times here already. All mortal sin destroys the soul.I do not believe our Church teaches equality of sins or automatic salvation or condemnation based on them all being of equal gravity. Both of those concepts are extremly Protestant, which has an all or nothing approach to salvation, with all sin being equal in it’s ability to condemn us to Hell, and salvation is considered assured, when accepted on their specific terms.
The Church disagrees with you:setter:
Addiction is one of the many compounding effects of the sin, not a factor in favor of lessening culpability. Also see Mat 12,43
Andy
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY
VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE
- The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html
- On the other hand, to presume to make one’s own weakness the criterion of moral truth is unacceptable. From the very first proclamation of the word of Jesus, Christians realize that there is a “disproportion” between the moral law, natural and evangelical, and the human capacity. They equally understand that the recognition of their own weakness is the necessary and secure road by which the doors to God’s mercy will be opened.
This is what the Church instructs:setter:
Addiction is one of the many compounding effects of the sin, not a factor in favor of lessening culpability. Also see Mat 12,43
Andy
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY
VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE
- The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands.
.
- On the other hand, to presume to make one’s own weakness the criterion of moral truth is unacceptable. From the very first proclamation of the word of Jesus, Christians realize that there is a “disproportion” between the moral law, natural and evangelical, and the human capacity. They equally understand that the recognition of their own weakness is the necessary and secure road by which the doors to God’s mercy will be opened
Your scenario of is in the realm of impure thoughts. Every examination of conscience I’ve ever seen asks us to focus on our impure acts and examine how we have indulged in our impure thoughts. Certainly, the latter creates gray areas. Your scenario mentions “giving in to the impure thoughts” which I assume means that they were fully indulged. I suppose the distinction could be one guy looks at her and thinks to himself how much fun it would be to bed her while another not only thinks that but contemplates the entire experience. The latter would ahve indulged them while the former had an impure thought, didn’t indulge it and moved on.I guess I need to be more clear.
A man can commit adultery in his heart and that is a mortal sin.
Are you saying it cannot happen quickly?
BTW, I do not remember Carter’s exact wording of that incident but it appears he got it right. That some Prostestants do not distinguish venial and mortal sin does not mean adultery in the heart is not mortal. Certainly mortal sins can vary in gravity, but all lead to loss of sanctifying grace.
Because these grave sins do not always result in the subjective gravity of mortal sin that kills charity for God in the soul.So, my question is the issue in this thread that one mortal sin, like masturabtion, is insufficient to warrant hell or is the issue that these types of acts do not always become mortal due to lack of consent?
I’m in complete agreement with all you’ve said above. In my posts, I didn’t at all mean to call the objective truth taught by the church into question. I guess that my reaction and the focus of my posts was due to a strong feeling that answering the concerns of the particular posters in a starkly objective manner, focusing on the penalty, (considering the understanding of the issue implied by the poster), may not be the best way to communicate the admitted danger inherent in serious sin. Not that the objective realities should ever be ignored, but rather that the issue might be more effectively explained in the greater context of church teaching on sexuality, including the reasoning behind it being considered seriously disordered.I don’t disagree with any of this. I may be misunderstanding the arguments, or not presenting my position well. From this thread I got the impression there is a notion that certain acts really are not that bad and certainly not going make one lose their salvation. My position is this is a very dangerous way to live.
We all agree no one knows how another’s soul appears to God. We ought not judge that. My point is certain acts are objectively wrong. If we do them we endanger our relationship with God. Whether we give full consent to the sin is another matter, but we should not dismiss these grave acts simply because we believe they are not so bad.
It seems to all go back to properly understanding what comprises mortal sin.
Again, it goes back to the definition of mortal sin. Every examination of conscience I see includes impure thoughts as does the CCC:Your scenario of is in the realm of impure thoughts. Every examination of conscience I’ve ever seen asks us to focus on our impure acts and examine how we have indulged in our impure thoughts. Certainly, the latter creates gray areas. Your scenario mentions “giving in to the impure thoughts” which I assume means that they were fully indulged. I suppose the distinction could be one guy looks at her and thinks to himself how much fun it would be to bed her while another not only thinks that but contemplates the entire experience. The latter would ahve indulged them while the former had an impure thought, didn’t indulge it and moved on.
If you agree with this distinction, I don’t think we have a difference of opinion. But if you think the former guy who considers it and dismisses it has committed mortal sin, I do think we have a difference of opinion. This is equating random thoughts and temptations with acting on them and this is definitely contrary to Catholic Teaching.
With regard to the subject of this thread, a teen who contemplates masturbation but chooses to abstain did not fully indulge his impure thoughts and the gravity is different than for a teen who chose to do it.
OK, fair enough.I’m in complete agreement with all you’ve said above. In my posts, I didn’t at all mean to call the objective truth taught by the church into question. I guess that my reaction and the focus of my posts was due to a strong feeling that answering the concerns of the particular posters in a starkly objective manner, focusing on the penalty, (considering the understanding of the issue implied by the poster), may not be the best way to communicate the admitted danger inherent in serious sin. Not that the objective realities should ever be ignored, but rather that the issue might be more effectively explained in the greater context of church teaching on sexuality, including the reasoning behind it being considered seriously disordered.
So, the point is not are masturbation and contraception “bad” enough to send one to hell. The point is do folks who commit these acts do so with proper consent and knowledge?Because these grave sins do not always result in the subjective gravity of mortal sin that kills charity for God in the soul.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
**To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility **and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (CCC)
By virtue of your own posts, it is not the thoughts that are where the mortal sin is but by “complicity in impure thoughts” and by having “consented to impure thoughts”.Again, it goes back to the definition of mortal sin. Every examination of conscience I see includes impure thoughts as does the CCC:
II. THE BATTLE FOR PURITY
2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail
**EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE
- by the *virtue *and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
- by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;313
- by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;314
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a9.htm
** You shall not desire your neighbor´s wife.
-Have I consented to impure thoughts?
-Have I caused them by impure reading, movies, television, conversation or curiosity?
-Do I pray at once to banish impure thoughts and temptations?
-Have I behaved in an inappropriate way with members of the opposite sex: flirting, being superficial, etc.?
216.147.24.130/articulo.php?artkod=NzE=
I think I made my post clear it was not a temptation by the man but willfully giving in to the temptation.
My point, again, is that folks seem to miss that mortal sin is mortal sin. It cuts of sanctifying grace. Whether one is fully culpable for any mortal sin is another matter.
Yes. Not all grave sins are mortal sins; but all mortal sins are grave sins.So, the point is not are masturbation and contraception “bad” enough to send one to hell. The point is do folks who commit these acts do so with proper consent and knowledge?
This is what the Church instructs:
**2352 ** (excerpt) To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (CCC)
.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.h tml
This is good news, and proves the interest the Church has playing a key part in assisting habitual sinners, thanks for this, but it’s too late to have effect.!.
All the same that’s a definite advantage I’ll admit.Code:How would a typical case like this be handled? The moral responsibility has already been factored in and reflected in the habitual temporal punishments he suffers. Second,The only recourse he has is to head to the confessional to confess the sin as the severity it has, and he comes out absolved (most of the time) before he arrives at is meeting. It would seem the culpability reduction becomes redundant.
Could you tell me where in scripture the Church obtains this doctrine ?
BTW – I fail to see how your cited scriptures applies to the discussion at hand.
Nope. Violation of natural law. Applies to all. Good day.I find it interesting that neither Jesus nor the apostles mentioned anything about oral sex, masturbation or birth control. None of these violate the ten commandments.
Why all the fuss? If you think it’s wrong, don’t do it. But don’t insist that everyone conform to your opinion. These are personal issues…between an individual and God.
It would seem lust is the parent, there could be any number of children. I would think that lust collectively represents sexual gratification out of the bounds of Devine intention.I find it interesting that neither Jesus nor the apostles mentioned anything about oral sex, masturbation or birth control. None of these violate the ten commandments.
Why all the fuss? If you think it’s wrong, don’t do it. But don’t insist that everyone conform to your opinion. These are personal issues…between an individual and God.
Do you accept and believe that the voice of the Catholic Church, founded by and on the person of Jesus Christ, is the same voice of Jesus Christ who singularly identifies Himself with the Church (Acts 9:4, 22:7, 26:14) and who gave the first apostles the power to “bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19, 18:18)?I find it interesting that neither Jesus nor the apostles mentioned anything about oral sex, masturbation or birth control. None of these violate the ten commandments.
Why all the fuss? If you think it’s wrong, don’t do it. But don’t insist that everyone conform to your opinion. These are personal issues…between an individual and God.
Your presented – “the benefits for the common good” – as the criteria for determining what means one would use in choosing to regulate birth (birth control), is not in good keeping with the Catholic principles for guiding one’s conscience and making morally licit decisions regarding “would access how that can occur”. This is what the Church teaches the faithful:
I won't go into that, it's not my place. I'll only say common good was a presumption.1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC)
A time out for reflection. Andy