If I have a pet in a Condo that has a no pet rule is that mortal or venial sin?

[CuriousInIL]

I don’t think that every breach of contract per se is a sin.

Here, because of the potential health issues, I do see it as a sin. I’d assess it as serious only if one was aware of the existence of someone that will be medically harmed.

 

[Apryl]

I hate to break the bad news to you here, but I must step in after reading this.
She/He does not ask us if she/he is breaking a contract. She/He is only worried if she/he is getting her/his God angry with her/him by her or his alleged inability to fulfill his or her contract.

Out of curiosity, what reasons would a believer have to not honor the contract they signed based on the teachings of Jesus in this case?

For me, Catholicism, belief, morality… those things are not just in boxes. My being doesn’t end on Sunday at 12:30, when I leave Mass. It’s how I live my life.

For me, when a person asks the question that our OP asked, it points out that how we act in day to day life reflects who we are based on what we believe

If this person wants to make an agreement, sign their name attesting that what they have written and signed is true and accurate as far as they know, and they know that what they have signed and written is NOT true and accurate as far as they know, they are being dishonest.

Most of us of Judeo Christian belief settings at least adhere to the Ten Commandments (no matter which of the Ten Commandment translations you use, there are certain elements that are consistent in these lists). Among the Ten Commandments, there is the Commandment that ‘Do not bear false witness against your neighbor’. My understanding of that is that we are not to LIE. Don’t say something about any one that you know is not true. That includes ABOUT YOURSELF. You are your own neighbor.

I can’t find it (I’m Catholic… lea’ me alone) but there is a passage where Christ is quoted as saying something like ‘may your ‘yes’ be a yes and your ‘no’ be a no’… and this situation also fits that.

Then there are the seven deadly sins. The first in the listing is Pride. It takes a lot of pride to suggest that your needs and desires trump those of others. That’s what is happening here. This person is also being greedy: they COULD live elsewhere and be comfortable and not affect the comfort of others, but in their greed, they are doing what could harm others.

The Corporal Works of Mercy speak to us about caring for others, making others as comfortable as possible, being civilized and sharing the world with others without offending or being offensive.

They don’t have to not-honor the contract. They could simply live somewhere else. I’m sure that there is somewhere that is nicer and more fitting within a close price range.

 

[Apryl]

StrawberryJam, aren’t you and Apryl in agreement on this topic? Have I missed something?

Yeah, I’m confused, too. I mean, I’m ALWAYS right. How could any one disagree with me?

I think you, Apryl, and the overwhelming majority in this thread think that the cat-owning condo-board-deceiver is in the wrong here.

You’re welcome.

And for the record, I’m still reeling from the loss of my cat less than two weeks ago, and I have a house full of furbabies. But that does not mean that every one HAS to put up with my cats!

 

[Apryl]

All right. However, I do not see what is wrong with having a pet in your home even if it displeases your landlord or neighbors. At the same time, there are some people do not want you to be able in your own house or automobile. The trivial laws of nanny-states are just waiting to be defied.

To have a landlord or neighbors who are displeased with you having a pet goes into the pile of ‘so what’ for them.

But, if YOU say to them, ‘I’m in agreement with you, and I won’t have a pet. Don’t worry about me. I’m shaking hands with you… signing on the dotted line… and it’s a done deal’ is another deal altogether.

And if a person is the type who would be so dishonest on such things finds later that they are hindered in owning a house or a car, I’m sure they’ll try to find some way to blame OTHERS for that. It’s not their fault.

No. NO. and NO!

This is not a law that’s trivial.

This reminds me of someone who had taken a VOW OF CELIBACY, and when they wanted to ‘change their mind’ and marry, others said, ‘the vow was unfair’.

But no one made this person make the vow! Period. No matter the reasoning. That was the agreement this person made and the vow they took. That doesn’t change because, ‘well, I didn’t mean it like that’.

There are those who sign on to pay for a loan, but because they see something else they’d rather have, they want to be exempted from repaying the loan.

Promises are made. We, as people, should adhere to our promises. While others may slip, we only have our own words to stand on. If your handshake isn’t as strong as something written in stone, there is no point in you offering your hand in a handshake.

 

[Apryl]

But yes, there are consequences for one’s actions. For instance, if one damages someone else’s property, one should have to pay for its repair.

What if a person dies because of being around a cat. What then? Who do you pay for that ‘repair’?

And is that really worth it, when you could just speak up, say, ‘I don’t agree, and I want to have my cat. What about that?’ and let the chips fall where they may?

C’mon… .MAN UP!

 

[Havard]

All right; I understand what you are saying. But I do not see why the responsible should be punished because of other people. Obviously, it is best to own your own house if it is at all possible. Then, you normally do not have to answer to other people.

It is possible for landlords to take a middle ground and require a meeting with the tenant and pet before approval of the pet. But whether a landlord decides to allow pets or not, or to require pet deposits… these are material business decisions.

Even if a pet or pet owner seems generally cleaner and more responsible than average, allowance of pets still contributes to the wear and tear of a landlord’s property. Each landlord has to decide whether they want to enjoy the higher demand and rent prices of being ‘pet-friendly’, or whether they prefer the more conservative route that saves them money on shampooing, painting, re-carpeting, etc. Whichever route the landlords choose, it is their property, their business, and thus their decision to make.

 

[StrawberryJam]

What if a person dies because of being around a cat. What then? Who do you pay for that ‘repair’?

And is that really worth it, when you could just speak up, say, ‘I don’t agree, and I want to have my cat. What about that?’ and let the chips fall where they may?

C’mon… .MAN UP!

There are pregnant women who may want to know about the cat being there if it is sharing any of the common areas.

I agree that there are risks involved to human life, however slim they are.

 

[Young_Thinker]

What if a person dies because of being around a cat. What then? Who do you pay for that ‘repair’?

And is that really worth it, when you could just speak up, say, ‘I don’t agree, and I want to have my cat. What about that?’ and let the chips fall where they may?

C’mon… .MAN UP!

But that goes for anyone who has a pet. Are we all supposed to give up our beloved animals just of a remote chance of someone dying because of being around one of them? We also should never cook with milk because of a guest we may have at our home one day who is lactose-intolerant.

 

[Young_Thinker]

It is possible for landlords to take a middle ground and require a meeting with the tenant and pet before approval of the pet. But whether a landlord decides to allow pets or not, or to require pet deposits… these are material business decisions.

Even if a pet or pet owner seems generally cleaner and more responsible than average, allowance of pets still contributes to the wear and tear of a landlord’s property. Each landlord has to decide whether they want to enjoy the higher demand and rent prices of being ‘pet-friendly’, or whether they prefer the more conservative route that saves them money on shampooing, painting, re-carpeting, etc. Whichever route the landlords choose, it is their property, their business, and thus their decision to make.

Very well.

 

[Young_Thinker]

To have a landlord or neighbors who are displeased with you having a pet goes into the pile of ‘so what’ for them.

But, if YOU say to them, ‘I’m in agreement with you, and I won’t have a pet. Don’t worry about me. I’m shaking hands with you… signing on the dotted line… and it’s a done deal’ is another deal altogether.

And if a person is the type who would be so dishonest on such things finds later that they are hindered in owning a house or a car, I’m sure they’ll try to find some way to blame OTHERS for that. It’s not their fault.

No. NO. and NO!

This is not a law that’s trivial.

This reminds me of someone who had taken a VOW OF CELIBACY, and when they wanted to ‘change their mind’ and marry, others said, ‘the vow was unfair’.

But no one made this person make the vow! Period. No matter the reasoning. That was the agreement this person made and the vow they took. That doesn’t change because, ‘well, I didn’t mean it like that’.

There are those who sign on to pay for a loan, but because they see something else they’d rather have, they want to be exempted from repaying the loan.

Promises are made. We, as people, should adhere to our promises. While others may slip, we only have our own words to stand on. If your handshake isn’t as strong as something written in stone, there is no point in you offering your hand in a handshake.

I see what you are saying, but, as I said before, people are sometimes in situations that are beyond their control. Lying is wrong, but would not you do it to help or save the life of a friend? Also, I am in no way condoning the desertion of religious vows. Nor was I talking about placing blame upon other people, just that it can be a cruel world.

 

[StrawberryJam]

But that goes for anyone who has a pet. Are we all supposed to give up our beloved animals just of a remote chance of someone dying because of being around one of them? We also should never cook with milk because of a guest we may have at our home one day who is lactose-intolerant.

This explains your moniker to us very well.

No, this does not go for anyone who has a pet. Once we find out we have a person in our living quarters that has an allergy to anything, we remove as best we can that thing.
The situation here is that there are Common areas of shared space. If that cat is in these areas, the situation changes and the burden to treat all that must share that space as if there is a visitor or guest that could be harmed, as important as if they were one in our own quarters of living space. In other words, you have no right to play with other people’s lives in a shared living space.
Do it in your own seperate living space if you wish, but do not subject others to your lack of reasoning skills.
As far as your really poor analogy goes regarding how or what to do when feeding guests at your table, I will for the first time in my life agree with what the bible says on that matter. Please look it up. I will be patient, as I have been told by posters here if they are catholic they may or may not recall or be able to cite the bible at any given time.

 

[Young_Thinker]

This explains your moniker to us very well.

No, this does not go for anyone who has a pet. Once we find out we have a person in our living quarters that has an allergy to anything, we remove as best we can that thing.
The situation here is that there are Common areas of shared space. If that cat is in these areas, the situation changes and the burden to treat all that must share that space as if there is a visitor or guest that could be harmed, as important as if they were one in our own quarters of living space. In other words, you have no right to play with other people’s lives in a shared living space.
Do it in your own seperate living space if you wish, but do not subject others to your lack of reasoning skills.
As far as your really poor analogy goes regarding how or what to do when feeding guests at your table, I will for the first time in my life agree with what the bible says on that matter. Please look it up. I will be patient, as I have been told by posters here if they are catholic they may or may not recall or be able to cite the bible at any given time.

All right; I realize that I may be getting a little carried away and perhaps not thinking too clearly(however, as for for the analogy of the lactose-intolerant guest, I was implying that one did not know about his allergy, so it is not as bad as it sounds). I also appreciate your subtle humor. My argument is based more upon emotion than reason, though. As odd as this may sound, not everything is explained well in the Bible or by Church Tradition. I feel that merely emphasizing the rudiments of obedience and honesty in this particular situation is not doing it justice. There are sometimes exceptions. While animals are not human beings, they deserve dignity and decency of treatment. I do not view them as an inconvenience. By the way, what scripture did you have in mind?

 

[PatriceA]

But that goes for anyone who has a pet. Are we all supposed to give up our beloved animals just of a remote chance of someone dying because of being around one of them? We also should never cook with milk because of a guest we may have at our home one day who is lactose-intolerant.

If you know your guest is lactose intolerant, would you think its just arbitrary and cook with the milk anyways? Isn’t that the arguement you are making, that the rules should be disregarded, a situation should be disregarded that others may suffer from because you think the rule is arbitrary? I don’t know how old you are, or if you have kids, but many schools and child care situations have rules about no food products that contain nuts because of potential life threatening nut allergies. Would you still make a snack for your child to share at their school knowing that someone may have an allergy to the product that could potentially harm or kill them?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

But that goes for anyone who has a pet. Are we all supposed to give up our beloved animals just of a remote chance of someone dying because of being around one of them? We also should never cook with milk because of a guest we may have at our home one day who is lactose-intolerant.

No - You’re supposed to find an apartment that allows pets, rather than lying to get into a place that does not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

All right; I realize that I may be getting a little carried away and perhaps not thinking too clearly(however, as for for the analogy of the lactose-intolerant guest, I was implying that one did not know about his allergy, so it is not as bad as it sounds). I also appreciate your subtle humor. My argument is based more upon emotion than reason, though. As odd as this may sound, not everything is explained well in the Bible or by Church Tradition. I feel that merely emphasizing the rudiments of obedience and honesty in this particular situation is not doing it justice. There are sometimes exceptions. While animals are not human beings, they deserve dignity and decency of treatment. I do not view them as an inconvenience. By the way, what scripture did you have in mind?

Offering the best is the hint I will give. What is the best you can offer a guest Young Thinker?

And, I appreciate you as well. I appreciate your taking the time to carefully think about things.

 

[Apryl]

But that goes for anyone who has a pet. Are we all supposed to give up our beloved animals just of a remote chance of someone dying because of being around one of them? We also should never cook with milk because of a guest we may have at our home one day who is lactose-intolerant.

ONLY if you say that you will agree to do so.

If you say it, then do it. If you don’t say it, no one will expect you to.

 

[Apryl]

I see what you are saying, but, as I said before, people are sometimes in situations that are beyond their control. Lying is wrong, but would not you do it to help or save the life of a friend? Also, I am in no way condoning the desertion of religious vows. Nor was I talking about placing blame upon other people, just that it can be a cruel world.

… Ohh kay…

But this isn’t about something being beyond this renter’s control.

This is not about saving a life.

The renter wants to live in a particular apartment, but hasn’t done very much to even TRY to live any where else. They want to live in that apartment, and to hell with what others may want or need or what this person has said, (giving his word) to others.

 

[Catholic90]

Young thinker…you sound quite young and inexperienced.

Your lactose analogy was quite wrong.
Using YOUR thought process, you would choose to serve food with finely ground nuts to a guest in your home who had a nut allergy, because you do not believe in being told what to do by others. You feel it is silly your guest has an allergy, you like the flavor of nuts, darn it, and you are going to serve them anyway, because you want them. Meanwhile, you COULD have asked your guest if it was OK if they eat nuts, but that was just too darn inconvenient for you.

Stay in school.

 

[Young_Thinker]

… Ohh kay…

But this isn’t about something being beyond this renter’s control.

This is not about saving a life.

The renter wants to live in a particular apartment, but hasn’t done very much to even TRY to live any where else. They want to live in that apartment, and to hell with what others may want or need or what this person has said, (giving his word) to others.

I see what you are saying. I was mentioning situations where I think that such behavior would be quite justified.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Young thinker…you sound quite young and inexperienced.

Your lactose analogy was quite wrong.
Using YOUR thought process, you would choose to serve food with finely ground nuts to a guest in your home who had a nut allergy, because you do not believe in being told what to do by others. You feel it is silly your guest has an allergy, you like the flavor of nuts, darn it, and you are going to serve them anyway, because you want them. Meanwhile, you COULD have asked your guest if it was OK if they eat nuts, but that was just too darn inconvenient for you.

Stay in school.

Thank you for the insults; I did not think that I was going around questioning anyone’s maturity or intelligence. However, I was talking about ignorance of your guest’s allergy. Adverse reactions to nuts seem to be common, and you could, for example, always make a second batch of brownies that do not have any nuts. However, some allergies are rarer than others, and, if you are not the sufferer, you probably would even think about them when cooking or doing anything else.