Q
quodestv
Guest
Friends in Christ,
I deeply appreciate the candor of your responses. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing topics such as these remain undiscussed because they are considered too taboo to bring up. This fact keeps people who have real questions about faith devoid of real understanding.
What is of more value? To blindly follow the verdict of an authority figure out of fear, or to question with chutzpah the very teachings of that authority in order to evaluate them on their merits? I side with the latter. Questioning, in my opinion, is an essential part of developing a real faith.
Serad, I can see that you have a strong faith. This is admirable. However, I only urge you to consider the reality of the position you are defending, if in fact you believe, as does presidentjlh, that masturbation is a “moral sin.” The implications of this teaching are far-reaching, and in my opinion, disconcerting. A mortal sin unforgiven, according to Church teaching, results in eternal damnation. So, consider G.I. Joe overseas who is married and separated from his spouse for 6 months or a year (or longer). One day he masturbates and that same afternoon is killed in combat. Does he go to hell? Seems a bit unfair and unbecoming of a loving God.
One might say, “Well, the Catechism teaches that there are extenuating circumstances that mitigate the mortal sin of masturbation.” So be it. I still am not satisfied. I am not able to contemplate the reality of a God of Love who sends an otherwise sinless person to Hell after committing the “sin” of masturbation, even if he is fully aware that it is wrong and is not under some sort of pressure (e.g. cultural immodesty, that he is of a young age, etc.). That’s not even a just consequence, much less a loving one.
More generally, I say to you, presidentjlh, that I am disillusioned with the idea of “infallibility.” It is true what you say about the Church’s supposed infallibility on moral issues. However, I would like to point out that if the Church can be fallible in one area, why can it not be fallible in another? Consider the document Nostra Aetate which for the first time announced that everyday Jewish people are not actually culpable for the death of Christ, and that people from other faiths can, in fact, reach eternal salvation. Publishing date: 1965. So what about Church teaching prior to that time…? If it is right now, then it must have been wrong then…or am I not understanding something?
I deeply appreciate the candor of your responses. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing topics such as these remain undiscussed because they are considered too taboo to bring up. This fact keeps people who have real questions about faith devoid of real understanding.
What is of more value? To blindly follow the verdict of an authority figure out of fear, or to question with chutzpah the very teachings of that authority in order to evaluate them on their merits? I side with the latter. Questioning, in my opinion, is an essential part of developing a real faith.
Serad, I can see that you have a strong faith. This is admirable. However, I only urge you to consider the reality of the position you are defending, if in fact you believe, as does presidentjlh, that masturbation is a “moral sin.” The implications of this teaching are far-reaching, and in my opinion, disconcerting. A mortal sin unforgiven, according to Church teaching, results in eternal damnation. So, consider G.I. Joe overseas who is married and separated from his spouse for 6 months or a year (or longer). One day he masturbates and that same afternoon is killed in combat. Does he go to hell? Seems a bit unfair and unbecoming of a loving God.
One might say, “Well, the Catechism teaches that there are extenuating circumstances that mitigate the mortal sin of masturbation.” So be it. I still am not satisfied. I am not able to contemplate the reality of a God of Love who sends an otherwise sinless person to Hell after committing the “sin” of masturbation, even if he is fully aware that it is wrong and is not under some sort of pressure (e.g. cultural immodesty, that he is of a young age, etc.). That’s not even a just consequence, much less a loving one.
More generally, I say to you, presidentjlh, that I am disillusioned with the idea of “infallibility.” It is true what you say about the Church’s supposed infallibility on moral issues. However, I would like to point out that if the Church can be fallible in one area, why can it not be fallible in another? Consider the document Nostra Aetate which for the first time announced that everyday Jewish people are not actually culpable for the death of Christ, and that people from other faiths can, in fact, reach eternal salvation. Publishing date: 1965. So what about Church teaching prior to that time…? If it is right now, then it must have been wrong then…or am I not understanding something?