A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Read the book.
- Status
M
Margaret_G
Guest
My question was “is this a Mortal Sin?” I was not asking if it was sinful. The Priest was trying to determine if it was Mortal since that was my question to him.
I have a dog who is sick with a chronic disease, as a matter of fact I too have the same chronic disease, the thing that we both have in common is having a large series of shots, all of which have had mercury in them. Mercury is very toxic. The allowable dosage of mercury in food consumption through fish is lower than the amount in many of the shots that are or have been given. There was a new study(it came out a few weeks ago) that showed that the autism rate has gone down over 25% since the mercury preservative thermisol has been taken out the shots for humans. The Amish who do not give shots only had a couple of cases of autism and the two cases that are known about both had shots (one child was adopted from another country). All of my dogs have had in the past their rabies shots. I am trying to get waivers so that they don’t have to have these shots. Why are their waivers available for children and pets if these shots are for the greater good?
I am alittle surprised at the lack of charitableness in the above quoted reply.
God Bless everyone and have a blessed and holy Sunday!!
T
TOME
Guest
First, I think the question presented in this thread shows more the danger of when scruples lead to scrupulousity ( a term used in the jargon of moral theologians).
When I see threads such as this one of my more immmediate reactions is our Church needs to catechize better on the difference between Mortal Sin and Grevious/Serious Matter. Mortal Sin, although it’s effects are objective and cummunial in nature, is a subjective choice meeting established criterial of the Church. Part of this criteria is that the action in question is of such a nature so as to cut the individual off totally from the love of God and the community of the Church. By this I mean the individual rejects God’s ever present love. So the sin (action) in question has to be that grevious or serious in its own nature. Then comes the most important factor, in my opinion, namely the subjective choice to freely commit such an act. An act may be objectively so serious that to freely choose to commit such an act would cause that sin to be mortal, but how can we judge the person’s mind and soul? We cannot, only God can, so it is impossible, in my opinion, to say any sin is truely Mortal, grevious or serious even deadly, yes but Mortal no.
One other point and this is to Andres use of St Paul. St Paul does not say we can do anything so long as it doesnot hurt someone else. This is a minimalist approach to life and goes against the Gospel message Christ gave to us and Paul proclaimed. Paul tells us in love everything is allowed but that Christian Love demands that we put the other person’s welfare and being ahead of our own. It is very proactive by nature. If we are not seeking out and acting towards the good of other’s as oppose to our own interest, then we are not living up to our Christian vocation. This what Paul means when he writes in love all things are allowed.
When I see threads such as this one of my more immmediate reactions is our Church needs to catechize better on the difference between Mortal Sin and Grevious/Serious Matter. Mortal Sin, although it’s effects are objective and cummunial in nature, is a subjective choice meeting established criterial of the Church. Part of this criteria is that the action in question is of such a nature so as to cut the individual off totally from the love of God and the community of the Church. By this I mean the individual rejects God’s ever present love. So the sin (action) in question has to be that grevious or serious in its own nature. Then comes the most important factor, in my opinion, namely the subjective choice to freely commit such an act. An act may be objectively so serious that to freely choose to commit such an act would cause that sin to be mortal, but how can we judge the person’s mind and soul? We cannot, only God can, so it is impossible, in my opinion, to say any sin is truely Mortal, grevious or serious even deadly, yes but Mortal no.
One other point and this is to Andres use of St Paul. St Paul does not say we can do anything so long as it doesnot hurt someone else. This is a minimalist approach to life and goes against the Gospel message Christ gave to us and Paul proclaimed. Paul tells us in love everything is allowed but that Christian Love demands that we put the other person’s welfare and being ahead of our own. It is very proactive by nature. If we are not seeking out and acting towards the good of other’s as oppose to our own interest, then we are not living up to our Christian vocation. This what Paul means when he writes in love all things are allowed.
F
fix
Guest
Al Masetti:
My point is we do not choose to obey civil laws we agree with and disobey ones we find we do not agree with.
Does this mean he does not say the things I asked about? I would think if the book is about difficult moral questions he would not be addresing the issues we speak of here as they are not difficult.
My point is we do not choose to obey civil laws we agree with and disobey ones we find we do not agree with.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
900 pages of small print to discuss 200 cases = moral theology is not all black and white.
read
the
book
read
the
book
F
fix
Guest
Al Masetti said:
Not an answer. The Church teaches we are to obey all just civil laws under ordinary circumstnces. You have given me an idea to start a new thread. Thanks.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
You want a yes or no answer. It don’t work that way.
A web site forum on the internet isn’t the place to get an authoritative response… especially when an authoritative response IS available from a book with an imprimatur and a nihil obstat.
read
the
book
F
fix
Guest
Al Masetti:
Aquinas said we should follow just laws, is he no longer reliable?
The CCC is the authoritative source. It says we must follow just civil laws. It is not a novel teaching.
Aquinas said we should follow just laws, is he no longer reliable?
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
But then there is canon law, some of which goes into other detail than that which is covered in the CCC.
Seriously, the reason why there is a topic called “Moral Theology” is that the code of law followed by the Church tends to be more Napoleonic than English. There is room for “negotiation”. At least that’s what one of my priest-friends with diocesan responsibilities told me. If the issue of Moral Theology seems to interest you, then it might be worth checking out this seeming dichotomy.
English law tends to be black and white (although not always).
If the CCC was everything, then there would be no need for folks to study and write about Moral Theology.
That’s why this Moral Theology forum exists and why I keep harping on the need to read books like Fr. Grisez’s “Difficult Moral Questions, Vol 3”. Visit Amazon and order a copy.
C
Celeste88
Guest
Margaret G:
Now as far as rabies shots…there are known cases of sarcoma - a type of cancer - induced by vaccinations in pets. This is why most vets will give shots in the legs nowa days - so that if a sarcoma develops the leg can be amputated and the pet can survive- with 3 legs instead of 4. I know several people who are refusing to vaccinate their cats for distemper, rabies, etc. but their cats are strictly indoor and have virtually no chance of getting sick. There are also intranasal spray vaccinations but I have not checked into these yet and I don’t know if they cover rabies vaccinations.
Before you stop vaccinating your dogs check with a vet or a veterinary school such as Cornell University, find out what the studies show on vaccinations and illnesses in pets. You may still have to vaccinate against rabies because that is the law - however you may have options with the other vaccinations.
I don’t think it is a mortal sin…however if your dog(s) bite someone they will have to be quarenteened for a certain number of days to make sure rabies doesn’t develop. This would also put undue stress on the person bitten, his or her family, yourself and even your dog! The laws are in place to protect innocent people.
Now as far as rabies shots…there are known cases of sarcoma - a type of cancer - induced by vaccinations in pets. This is why most vets will give shots in the legs nowa days - so that if a sarcoma develops the leg can be amputated and the pet can survive- with 3 legs instead of 4. I know several people who are refusing to vaccinate their cats for distemper, rabies, etc. but their cats are strictly indoor and have virtually no chance of getting sick. There are also intranasal spray vaccinations but I have not checked into these yet and I don’t know if they cover rabies vaccinations.
Before you stop vaccinating your dogs check with a vet or a veterinary school such as Cornell University, find out what the studies show on vaccinations and illnesses in pets. You may still have to vaccinate against rabies because that is the law - however you may have options with the other vaccinations.
- Status