Is it easier to post what isn't a sin?

[FidesSpesCarita]

Oh I was being completely serious. We had big class discussions about all this. Unless I wanted to go back and tell all my nun professors that they were wrong, I can’t really take back anything I’ve been saying, because it comes straight from my education. Everything I said in my above quote is true, and I don’t see how any Catholic can deny that. Let’s break it down:

1. The bible says many heinous things that we don’t take literally.

I am sorry, but this is true. We all know the old testament says some horrible horrible things.

Example: “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them… “Now … kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
– Numbers 31:1-18 (NIV)

The new testament isn’t nearly as notorious but there are some pretty bad things there as well.

Example: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
– I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

Like I said, we don’t take these things literally. They are examples/symbols representing some type of lesson to learn. You’re right, a lot of the Catechism IS based on scripture. But not all of it. I didn’t say every single thing written in the bible is terrible, and none of it is to be taken literally. I just said “some.” I don’t see why any Catholic would have a problem with that statement.

Then what you are trying to say is that the Catholic Church tells us to ignore parts of scripture? The Catholic Church gave us scripture so why would our Mother Church deny her own teachings?

1. The bible isn’t the main pillar of truth, the Church is.

Again, I am surprised that you, as a Catholic, would argue this.

I dont have a problem with the Church being the pillar and foundation of the Truth. But what is the Church built upon? 1) the Magisterium 2) Sacred Tradition 3) The Bible (In no particular order). The Catechism teaches us that all interpretations of the bible flow from the literal, therefore how can we ignore the literal and accept the symbolic while still attesting to following the teachings of the Church?

Read 1 Timothy 3:15. Or better yet, read this: catscans.com/catholicsite/bible.htm

So there it all is. I WAS being serious. I went to Catholic school/college, and this is what I received.

I dont think you understand where I was coming from. I take umbrage at your statement that we, as Catholics, must reject (ignore is what you said, i am simply using a synonymous term) portions of scripture. That is completely counter to everything the Church has taught us for almost 2000 years.

If that is what you received from your Catholic education then I apologize to you for heterodox teachings and will pray for your educators.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

One sin IS enough to send someone to Hell. I never said otherwise, so I don’t know why you’re using this as an argument against my statement above. And correct ME if I’m wrong but there is a right way and a wrong way of trying to help someone get to heaven. All I’m saying here is that it’s wrong to point fingers and judge people, and try to tell them they’re going to Hell. It’s not loving, and it’s just going to push them farther away from God. Agree or no?

It would be absolutely wrong of me to say that anyone is going to hell and I would never do it. I will not, however, ever cease to attest to what is sin and what is good. We need to be discerning of matters of sin which means that we must judge between the good and the sinful. It can never be wrong to admonish the sinner while maintaining love in truth, since admonishing the sinner is one of the spiritual works of mercy. Admonishment must be directed at all times to the salvation of souls, so I agree with you

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Ok? So what are you suggesting here by debating my above quote? You think we SHOULD sit on our high horses and pretend to know who is going to hell and who’s saved and who isn’t? I said “God calls us to be humble and loving and charitable, and that doesn’t include judging people in the way that only God can.” Do you disagree with my statement there? It seems to me like a lot of times you just argue for the sake of arguing.

Again, what I said was that we should not judge the person, but we should judge the actions. What this means is that while we can and should never, under any circumstances, say that anyone is going to hell. But what we can and should, in all circumstances, is judge the actions as sinful or otherwise. That does not mean we need to “call out” every sinner, but we should be prepared to defend the good and fight the evil whenever the need arises.

Furthermore, I most certainly don’t consider myself a liberal Catholic. I just don’t pretend to know who is/is not saved. I thought not judging people was a huge part of being a good Catholic, and that’s what I try to do. I also know that walking down the street and preaching God’s word to random people may have worked a long time ago but definitely just turns people off nowadays, especially when we’re talking about being saved or not. Mary Beth Bonacci gives some very good advice on how to effectively evangelize in her book “We are on a Mission from God.”

I agree with you here. I have addressed those points with which I disagreed above, so hopefully you can understand my statements a little bit better. If you would like Catechism references, Encyclical references, etc. I can get those as you desire.

 

[Debora123]

Well I’m glad we can conclude that we actually agree on a lot of things once we cleared all that up.

And yes, baptism is very important, I never said it wasn’t. When I was talking about baptism I was making the argument that just because someone wasn’t baptized doesn’t mean there is no salvation for them, and that they will go straight to hell because of it. This doesn’t mean I don’t think baptism is important, it just means I don’t think Ghandi (for example) went to Hell. And NO, I DON’T think the Eucharist is symbolic!! Lol.

Baptism is important because it puts us on the right path to God, by officially making us members of the Catholic Church. It is important that we be put on the right path to God, because due to our natural tendency to sin, we don’t exactly start off on the right foot (although like I said, that doesn’t mean the person is going to Hell for it, you can still lead a life of virtue w/o ever having been baptized). Anyway, original sin is supposedly not something that we can ever fully comprehend. I try to think of it as our natural tendency to sin - our fallen nature. And yes, that is where we differ, because you don’t think of original sin as that, but I think you and I can at least somewhat agree on what baptism means. And of course, I think it’s important.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Well I’m glad we can conclude that we actually agree on a lot of things once we cleared all that up.

And yes, baptism is very important, I never said it wasn’t. When I was talking about baptism I was making the argument that just because someone wasn’t baptized doesn’t mean there is no salvation for them, and that they will go straight to hell because of it. This doesn’t mean I don’t think baptism is important, it just means I don’t think Ghandi (for example) went to Hell. And NO, I DON’T think the Eucharist is symbolic!! Lol.

Not disagreement, just a point of clarification. Baptism (literal, trinitarian, water baptism) is the only NORMAL means of attaining the beatific vision (heaven) that we know of (obviously other factors play into this, but that is a requirement). That being said, it does not mean that those who die without baptism are damned. Again, anyone who ever says that anyone else is damned is just flat out wrong to say that.

However, I will reserve comment on Gandhi, Siddhartha, etc. since I cannot know anything regarding the status of their souls. But I will say that not being baptized and a refusal to accept the Truth (Christ) puts you on shaky footing since we know that more is necessary to attain heaven than just “living a good life”.

Baptism is important because it puts us on the right path to God, by officially making us members of the Catholic Church. It is important that we be put on the right path to God, because due to our natural tendency to sin, we don’t exactly start off on the right foot (although like I said, that doesn’t mean the person is going to Hell for it, you can still lead a life of virtue w/o ever having been baptized). Anyway, original sin is supposedly not something that we can ever fully comprehend. I try to think of it as our natural tendency to sin - our fallen nature. And yes, that is where we differ, because you don’t think of original sin as that, but I think you and I can at least somewhat agree on what baptism means. And of course, I think it’s important.

Ok, I think we just diverge on our view of original sin and I dont find it necessary to belabor that point any further

Again, I apologize if I offended. It was not my intent.

 

[Vince1022]

Paragraph 1862

That doesn’t say intent is not part of the equation. Simply that FULL intent is not required.

Intent is always a consideration regarding sin. Whether it’s “full” or not can be the distinction between mortal and venial sin.

If you disagree, let’s look at this another way.

Are you suggesting that “intent” applies only to mortal sin?

Look at CCC 1750, which lists the three “sources” of Catholic morality (note, there’s no differentiation here among the three, i.e. all three are constitutive). Object, Intent, and Circumstances.

So…intent is integrally part of the consideration of what is “sinful” according to Catholic teaching.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

That doesn’t say intent is not part of the equation. Simply that FULL intent is not required.

Intent is always a consideration regarding sin. Whether it’s “full” or not can be the distinction between mortal and venial sin.

If you disagree, let’s look at this another way.

Are you suggesting that “intent” applies only to mortal sin?

Look at CCC 1750, which lists the three “sources” of Catholic morality (note, there’s no differentiation here among the three, i.e. all three are constitutive). Object, Intent, and Circumstances.

So…intent is integrally part of the consideration of what is “sinful” according to Catholic teaching.

Ok, lets go at this another way. If you and your wife (hypothetical) are cooking dinner and you are chopping broccoli (chopping broccoleye hehehe) and turn rapidly, cutting her accidentally, does your intent have any impact on what has occurred? Does the fact that you didnt mean to cut her mean that she is now not cut?

Intent has a part of sin, but is not integral in all sin.

A discussion of morality is different than a discussion of sin. What we believe to be moral and good can be, in fact, sinful. Look at the Pharisees who thought they were doing all things moral and good and yet were sinning without intent or knowledge.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Just to rehash this, since I seem unable to avoid it, paragraph 1750 is as follows:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

This is fleshed out well here

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.

This is a discussion of how to determine the morality of an action as a whole. As the quote above clearly explains in the highlighted.

I suppose, vince, that perhaps you should explain how and why you feel it is possible to avoid sin, what the definition of venial sin would be, and whether intent is required for venial sin (with supporting documentation please).

 

[phoenixrrt62]

I’m reading though many of these threads, am I’m simply gob-smacked at what the Catholic Church regards as a sin. I would never even have considered that most of the stuff were sins.

I’m probably constantly sinning and don’t even realise it.

Would it not be easier to post a list of what isn’t sinning?

Yeah, probably

To be serious, I think some people who are posting about sins every 5 minutes have a touch of OCD. My catholic foster parents weren’t even*** that*** off the wall with the sins, and I used to think they were pretty harsh.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Yeah, probably

To be serious, I think some people who are posting about sins every 5 minutes have a touch of OCD. My catholic foster parents weren’t even*** that*** off the wall with the sins, and I used to think they were pretty harsh.

There’s a certain amount of trolling that goes on with some of those threads.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Yeah, probably

To be serious, I think some people who are posting about sins every 5 minutes have a touch of OCD. My catholic foster parents weren’t even*** that*** off the wall with the sins, and I used to think they were pretty harsh.

We call “Sin OCD” Scrupulosity, and I agree.

 

[Vince1022]

Ok, lets go at this another way. If you and your wife (hypothetical) are cooking dinner and you are chopping broccoli (chopping broccoleye hehehe) and turn rapidly, cutting her accidentally, does your intent have any impact on what has occurred?

Yes.

Does the fact that you didnt mean to cut her mean that she is now not cut?

Obviously, no.

Intent has a part of sin, but is not integral in all sin.

Again, where does the Catholic Church teach this?

A discussion of morality is different than a discussion of sin.

No, not different, but there are distinctions. A discussion of morality includes more than only a discussion of sin.

What we believe to be moral and good can be, in fact, sinful. Look at the Pharisees who thought they were doing all things moral and good and yet were sinning without intent or knowledge.

No, the point of the Pharisees sinning had everything to do with their intent. They were following the Law (performing the right actions) but for the wrong reasons (intent) in many cases. Right? They were following the Law God gave them, right? So the “object” or “act” was not in question, it was their intent (or perhaps circumstances).

And, as Jesus revealed, their knowledge of the Law was obviously imperfect.

So do you really think the Pharisees were sinning regardless of intent and knowledge?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Yes.

Obviously, no.

Again, where does the Catholic Church teach this?

See the CCC reference I keep listing that states “Without full knowledge or consent”

No, not different, but there are distinctions. A discussion of morality includes more than only a discussion of sin.

True.

No, the point of the Pharisees sinning had everything to do with their intent. They were following the Law (performing the right actions) but for the wrong reasons (intent) in many cases. Right? They were following the Law God gave them, right? So the “object” or “act” was not in question, it was their intent (or perhaps circumstances).

Their intent was to follow the law given to them by God in what they saw (not all but some) as the way God wanted them to follow it. Is that not what we all do? Yet they were still sinning.

And, as Jesus revealed, their knowledge of the Law was obviously imperfect.

So they were sinning without full knowledge and (IMHO) without full consent to sin (i.e. intent).

So do you really think the Pharisees were sinning regardless of intent and knowledge?

In some cases yes, in some cases no. Just like some Catholic clergy have unwillingly sinned against God by allowing abuses which they honestly believed were good, while some have willfully institued abuses in order to advance their own agenda (read “sale of indulgences” here).

Again, please answer my question

I suppose, vince, that perhaps you should explain how and why you feel it is possible to avoid sin, what the definition of venial sin would be, and whether intent is required for venial sin (with supporting documentation please).

 

[phoenixrrt62]

There’s a certain amount of trolling that goes on with some of those threads.

Oh, I figured as much. I do believe I actually alluded to one poster that I “got” what he was doing and I thought he(?) was a riot…never heard any response

 

[Vince1022]

See the CCC reference I keep listing that states “Without full knowledge or consent”

I thought that applied to mortal or grave sin. Is that correct? And so, not to ALL sin?

 

[Vince1022]

Their intent was to follow the law given to them by God in what they saw (not all but some) as the way God wanted them to follow it. Is that not what we all do? Yet they were still sinning.

So they were sinning without full knowledge and (IMHO) without full consent to sin (i.e. intent).

Right. They followed the law (object). Their deficiency was in INTENT and/or CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

[Vince1022]

Again, please answer my question

Sorry if I didn’t.

Can you please restate or clarify your question that you want me to answer, specifically?

Thank you.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I thought that applied to mortal or grave sin. Is that correct? And so, not to ALL sin?

No, it quite specifically states “Venial sin” at the beginning. The requirements for MORTAL sin are: Grave matter, Full knowledge, Full consent (intent). If one or all of those are missing, at best it is venial sin.

Right. They followed the law (object). Their deficiency was in INTENT and/or CIRCUMSTANCES.

No, their intent was to do the will of God. Their intent was to love God in the fashion they earnestly believed he wished them to follow him. If your intent is to love Christ by not allowing a child to be born into horrible circumstances, i.e. drug dealing parents with AIDS, and you have an abortion with the very best of intentions, is it a sin? ABSOLUTELY!!!

If you are in the airport and set down your briefcase, which your wife picks up to prevent you losing it, and you grab the one next to you (identical to yours), which happens to belong to someone else, is it theft? Absolutely. Your intent to grab your own briefcase did not change the fact of your actions.

Sorry if I didn’t.

Can you please restate or clarify your question that you want me to answer, specifically?

Thank you.

Here you go.

I suppose, vince, that perhaps you should explain how and why you feel it is possible to avoid sin, what the definition of venial sin would be, and whether intent is required for venial sin (with supporting documentation please).

Three things I suppose I would like for you to answer:

1. How and why do you feel it is possible to avoid sin? Citations would be great here.
2. What would YOU define venial sin to be, if not as the catechism states “Without full knowledge or consent [intent]”? Documentation please.
3. Whether intent is required for all types of sin? Documentation please.

 

[Vince1022]

If you are in the airport and set down your briefcase, which your wife picks up to prevent you losing it, and you grab the one next to you (identical to yours), which happens to belong to someone else, is it theft? Absolutely. Your intent to grab your own briefcase did not change the fact of your actions.

Nonsense. It’s not theft, just an innocent mistake. Where would Catholic teaching suggest the action you describe is sinful?

1. How and why do you feel it is possible to avoid sin? Citations would be great here.

Free will and grace and sacraments.

1. What would YOU define venial sin to be, if not as the catechism states “Without full knowledge or consent [intent]”? Documentation please

That seems fine to me, i.e. a venial sin is any sin that is not done with full consent or knowledge (intent)…

1. Whether intent is required for all types of sin? Documentation please.

See CCC 1750 (which I believe you’ve cited previously)

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Nonsense. It’s not theft, just an innocent mistake. Where would Catholic teaching suggest the action you describe is sinful?

Oh, so if that briefcase happened to contain, say, a million dollars, the owner would just chuckle, and say “Oh, thats ok, It was just an accident.”

Come on Vince, be logical here.

Free will and grace and sacraments.

Ok, first off, I asked for citations not opinion. If you cant cite anything to prove your point, then… oh well, I will know where you stand anyway.

That seems fine to me, i.e. a venial sin is any sin that is not done with full consent or knowledge (intent)…

See CCC 1750 (which I believe you’ve cited previously)

Come on now, first you say that you do not require intent (or at least “full” intent) then go on to tell me that you do? I am assuming that was your intent with 1750, since that was your intent the last time.

Ok, here is the citation (again). Please start providing your own quotes when you cite.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

So morality is equal to sin?

Here, I will define moral for you.

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6.
virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8.
resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

Now lets see sin

–noun
1.
transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2.
any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3.
any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It’s a sin to waste time.

So here we have one word that is almost always used as an adjective (moral) and one word that is almost invariably a noun (sin). One seeks to identify whether an action matches up with a law system (any) and one deals specifically breaking the divine law.

If you assume that the two are equivalent and apply the criteria above re: the morality of actions, then it is absolutely possible to sin without intent.

• the object chosen; (here say abortion for a woman completely uneducated about God or the Faith)
• the end in view or the intention; (here say love of God and His Children and a desire to love our neighbor as ourselves and since we dont want to live in the situation we are in we, out of love, will not bring a child into it)
• the circumstances of the action. (Drug dealing boyfriend who is addicted to meth while the mother [us in this analogy] is meth addicted with Hep C who sells herself for drugs.)

In that situation, the mother has absolutely the best intentions and, out of love, aborts the child to protect him/her from a lifetime of abuse and pain (well, in her head at least). Yet she has still sinned.

Granted this is an extreme example, but it clearly illustrates that intent is not a necessity to sin, otherwise the woman above would not have sinned by killing her child.

But I feel like I am wasting my energy here. You continue to assert your opinion unsupported and cannot provide anything which shows that we have the ability to avoid sin entirely. If you can provide me with any citations to support your idea that we can avoid sin completely, live sinlessly, that venial sin essentially does not exist (since for a sin to be a sin in your eyes it would have to be a grave sin with full knowledge of what you are doing and full intent, otherwise it is not sin and your definition of sin defines quite well MORTAL sin), and show me where venial sin requires intent.

[although now that I think about it perhaps your version of venial sin would go “Not a grave matter, full knowledge, full consent”. But this is just an extrapolation based upon your arguments thus far. You might hold a completely different view.]

Please Vince, start citing things that support your views on the necessity of intent for sin, the capacity of people to avoid sin entirely, what you would define venial sin to be, etc.

I am starting to think that you argue with me just for the sake of arguing

FSC