Moral sin is based on one's opinion

[fix]

There are 3 criteria for mortal sin. I have seen them posted here before, but one of them is that you have to know what you are doing is wrong. So, I have seen people talking about masturbation and not going to church as mortal sins…well doesn’t that depend on your opinion of the action then? I don’t think masturbation is bad and I don’t think that not going to mass is bad either. Thus, they cannot be mortal sins for me. I do not think I am doing anything wrong by masturbating or missing mass. “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.” So basically, if you do something, and don’t think it is bad, then in the end, it is not a mortal sin. Right?

It involves consent, knowledge, and grave matter. It, also, involves how much effort we take, or refuse to take, to inform our conscience. Whether we accept God’s grace or reject it. Whether we are culpable or not involves how obstinate we are or are not to being open to what is true.

The CCC explains it here:
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

[Mijoy2]

I agree…but it makes it impossible to be a mortal sin if you do not recognize it as wrong.

If you “do not recognize it as wrong” (your words), it is because you have not attempted to understand the Word of God.

If you believe (to any significant degree) that Jesus was the Son of God and died on the cross for your sins (in other words if you call yourself a Christian) it is your God given responsibility to ask of yourself to learn what God wanted you to know. If you were to study this to any signifiacnt degree (it is not theological rocket science) you’d learn that masturbation and missing mass are sinful. Once you learn this if you still continue in this behavior you are turning your back on God (mortal sin).

If you refuse to learn Gods word you are turning your back on the God you profess to believe in. Ignorance only gets you so far. Laziness only gets you so far.

 

[prettylarge]

Are you against the Church in general due to guilt and guilt hurts, and ergo, the Church hurts by proclaiming masturbation is a sin?

I am against the church because the hierarchy of sin seems to be completely lopsided towards sexual sin. I feel like masturbation, pre marital sex, and homosexuality are pretty much the most talked about sins, and I don’t feel like they should be. It wasn’t until well after Jesus died (after the middle ages I believe) that these sins had such an emphasis put on them. In the early days of Christianity, they were for the most part a non issue. But now the church is obsessed with them. I just don’t think that the church has its priorities straight if it focuses so much time on sexual acts, that for the most part, don’t hurt people. Obviously adultery is bad and can be very hurtful. Also, pretending to have feelings for someone so they have sex with you, when it isn’t the case…that is bad too. These are so bad because they effect other people in horrible ways. THAT is why they are so bad. They aren’t bad because the act is a mortal sin. It is so wrong to think that masturbation is a mortal sin. That is such a joke. I would rather masturbate to internet porn (and think it is a much better act) than slightly offending someone or annoying them in public. But one sin is mortal, and one is barely a sin…according to the church at least. It is just ridiculous.

 

[prettylarge]

That’s even worse. If a Catholic does not accept the Church’s teaching that is heresy and such a Catholic would be in a state of mortal sin and subject to even being excommunicated.

Well I hope the pope doesn’t take notice.

 

[prettylarge]

If you “do not recognize it as wrong” (your words), it is because you have not attempted to understand the Word of God.

If you believe (to any significant degree) that Jesus was the Son of God and died on the cross for your sins (in other words if you call yourself a Christian) it is your God given responsibility to ask of yourself to learn what God wanted you to know. If you were to study this to any signifiacnt degree (it is not theological rocket science) you’d learn that masturbation and missing mass are sinful. Once you learn this if you still continue in this behavior you are turning your back on God (mortal sin).

If you refuse to learn Gods word you are turning your back on the God you profess to believe in. Ignorance only gets you so far. Laziness only gets you so far.

OK, let me just throw this out there. Did Jesus ever say that you must go to mass? Did they ever say it in any other part of NT? I don’t think so. It is a church construct. And you can say that the church has authority, but at least half the Christians in the world don’t agree with that. As for masturbation, it is barely talked about at all in the Bible, yet it is like public enemy number 1. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?

I’m pretty sure that when I die God isn’t going to say “Well you missed church and didn’t repent…so to hell with you.” And it would be just as ridiculous if he did the same with masturbation. The fact of the matter is that the church blows up these two sins into something bigger than they are…and if you look at the passages in the Bible referring to them (or lack of passages referring to them)…and ESPECIALLY a lack of Jesus talking about these actions (which at the LEAST means that his apostles and the people writing the gospels did not think that it was a big part of Jesus’ message, and at best means that Jesus didn’t even think about it or talk about it), you will see the church shouldn’t make such a big deal out of it either. I don’t believe in everything the church says, and neither does many priests. A jesuit priest one time told me that if Jesus came back and saw the teaching about going to church every week he would probably say something like “ehhh, I think you guys are missing the point.”

 

[chessmane4e5]

I am against the church because the hierarchy of sin seems to be completely lopsided towards sexual sin. I feel like masturbation, pre marital sex, and homosexuality are pretty much the most talked about sins, and I don’t feel like they should be.

If these are the most talked about sins, then maybe it is because they are important. I would argue that to the Church, these are not the MOST important, but they are important. Abortion is probably the most important issue, if I had to pick one. But why are we to just one, any issue that involves mortal sin is important to the Church.

It wasn’t until well after Jesus died (after the middle ages I believe) that these sins had such an emphasis put on them. In the early days of Christianity, they were for the most part a non issue.

Not entirely true. But if they were a non-issue it is probably because their either didn’t happen or it was obvious what was thought about them. Premarital sex for example, has always been wrong.

But now the church is obsessed with them. I just don’t think that the church has its priorities straight if it focuses so much time on sexual acts, that for the most part, don’t hurt people.

Could you cite evidence that the Church is obsessed or concerned with only these issues? This is your opinion. The Church is clearly concerned with so many more issues than this.

Obviously adultery is bad and can be very hurtful. Also, pretending to have feelings for someone so they have sex with you, when it isn’t the case…that is bad too. These are so bad because they effect other people in horrible ways. THAT is why they are so bad. They aren’t bad because the act is a mortal sin.

Clearly this is your opinion. Christians believe that God gave us rules to follow, not so our life on earth would be better, but because it was our spiritual lives that are damaged by sin. Yes, most people feel bad when a sin is committed against them (adultery for example) but God did not create this law simply because it made a person feel bad to have cheated on. When two people are married and become one, that is something so special that no man can separate it. When they have sex, they are renewing their vows participating in something so much better than the earthly pleasure of sex.

It is so wrong to think that masturbation is a mortal sin. That is such a joke. I would rather masturbate to internet porn (and think it is a much better act) than slightly offending someone or annoying them in public. But one sin is mortal, and one is barely a sin…according to the church at least. It is just ridiculous.

Again, you do not understand the Catholic teaching of sex and marriage. If you really want to know what the Catholics are told to believe, read “Good News about Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West. If you chose to believe it, I guarantee you will never view sex in the same way again, and you will never masturbate again. The message is that powerful.

 

[chessmane4e5]

OK, let me just throw this out there. Did Jesus ever say that you must go to mass? Did they ever say it in any other part of NT? I don’t think so. It is a church construct. And you can say that the church has authority, but at least half the Christians in the world don’t agree with that. As for masturbation, it is barely talked about at all in the Bible, yet it is like public enemy number 1. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?

Jesus did say that unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man, you will not go to heaven. And then He told his apostles as the last supper, this is my flesh, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of Me. At the Catholic Mass we do what the Lord commanded us. So, no Jesus never said, “Go to Mass” (nor did he say, “Drive a car to work”) but He did tell us what to do.

I’m pretty sure that when I die God isn’t going to say “Well you missed church and didn’t repent…so to hell with you.” And it would be just as ridiculous if he did the same with masturbation. The fact of the matter is that the church blows up these two sins into something bigger than they are…and if you look at the passages in the Bible referring to them (or lack of passages referring to them)…and ESPECIALLY a lack of Jesus talking about these actions (which at the LEAST means that his apostles and the people writing the gospels did not think that it was a big part of Jesus’ message, and at best means that Jesus didn’t even think about it or talk about it), you will see the church shouldn’t make such a big deal out of it either.

I am pretty sure that the Catholic Church is correct. Does that mean I am right? I again state that the lack of scripture in the New Testament was because it did not need to be repeated from the Old Testament. It was pretty obvious where God stood on these issues. Can you show me where Jesus said that God is omniscient? Just because Jesus didn’t say it, doesn’t make it not true.

I don’t believe in everything the church says, and neither does many priests. A jesuit priest one time told me that if Jesus came back and saw the teaching about going to church every week he would probably say something like “ehhh, I think you guys are missing the point.”

The moment you (or anyone, priests included) do not believe in a teaching of the Church, they are no longer a Catholic but are immediately ex-communicated. I know a priest that believes everything the Church teaches and told me that if Jesus were to come back and saw the teaching about going to church every week he would probably say “Great work guys” or “Just every week, you should be telling people to go everyday”.

 

[prettylarge]

Jesus did say that unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man, you will not go to heaven. And then He told his apostles as the last supper, this is my flesh, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of Me. At the Catholic Mass we do what the Lord commanded us. So, no Jesus never said, “Go to Mass” (nor did he say, “Drive a car to work”) but He did tell us what to do.

I am pretty sure that the Catholic Church is correct. Does that mean I am right? I again state that the lack of scripture in the New Testament was because it did not need to be repeated from the Old Testament. It was pretty obvious where God stood on these issues. Can you show me where Jesus said that God is omniscient? Just because Jesus didn’t say it, doesn’t make it not true.

The moment you (or anyone, priests included) do not believe in a teaching of the Church, they are no longer a Catholic but are immediately ex-communicated. I know a priest that believes everything the Church teaches and told me that if Jesus were to come back and saw the teaching about going to church every week he would probably say “Great work guys” or “Just every week, you should be telling people to go everyday”.

Well, I will tell that priest that he is ex communicated as soon as I can.

 

[Shlomey]

I was baptized and confirmed, but I do not go to church…nor do I take everything the church believes as truth.

Then you are an obstinate heretic. A candidate for hell.

Remember the rebels along with Core: they surely were not convinced that what they did was wrong: they all still perished.

And there are certain sins that exclude people from heaven: 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

[chessmane4e5]

Well, I will tell that priest that he is ex communicated as soon as I can.

You can if you want, but that is you saying it, not me or the Church.

I am merely stating what the Church believes. Since I am merely going on what you have said, I would not claim anything. If I heard a priest teach something contrary to the Church, I would question the priest about it, before condemning him.

 

[chessmane4e5]

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp

For anyone that wants to read up on what the Church teaches about excommunication.

 

[mullenpm]

OP said that he knows people who are former Catholics and are now Atheists and say “no sin.” How silly. Saying that now they are no longer practicing Catholics means that no matter what horrible act they do there is no sin involved. No Catholic, fallen away or not, can ever say they do not believe that God exists.

They will be in for a big surprise on their day of Particular Judgment. As will you.

Are those moments of self-gratification really worth the eternity of Hell. (I can hear you say you don’t believe in Hell). Of course you believe in Hell and if you die suddenly and with no chance to ask God for forgiveness you will experience it. Think of an eternity of pain - never ending pain.

I am sure that even with all your attempts to justify your immoral behavior if you have time to ask God for forgiveness when you die, you will be first in line saying you are sorry but “I just didn’t understand it was a sin.”

What a sad marriage this must be where both parties feel the need to perform an unnatural act for gratification.:sad_yes:

OP is egotistic, willful and self-centered and no amount of discussion will change his mind. He has apparently been baptized and confirmed as a Catholic but has had no Catholic education and/or upbringing so his arguments are based on ignorance, which is a pity but does not make him less culpable for his sinful actions. The thought of excommunication is no big deal to him, but he should give some thought to an eternity in Hell.:knight2::knight1:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You do have to be careful to understand that nobody goes to hell unwillingly, protesting that “I didn’t know it was a sin.”

What is a more likely scenario is that at the moment of death the person is given the choice–you knew it was sinful, do you repent–and the person, who COULD choose to repent, marches off to hell defiantly going, “Yes, I knew, but I refuse to apologize and repent. Forever I will be my own god, having chosen to ‘reign in hell’ rather than to humble myself and rejoice in heaven.”

 

[prettylarge]

OP said that he knows people who are former Catholics and are now Atheists and say “no sin.” How silly. Saying that now they are no longer practicing Catholics means that no matter what horrible act they do there is no sin involved. No Catholic, fallen away or not, can ever say they do not believe that God exists.

They will be in for a big surprise on their day of Particular Judgment. As will you.

Are those moments of self-gratification really worth the eternity of Hell. (I can hear you say you don’t believe in Hell). Of course you believe in Hell and if you die suddenly and with no chance to ask God for forgiveness you will experience it. Think of an eternity of pain - never ending pain.

I am sure that even with all your attempts to justify your immoral behavior if you have time to ask God for forgiveness when you die, you will be first in line saying you are sorry but “I just didn’t understand it was a sin.”

What a sad marriage this must be where both parties feel the need to perform an unnatural act for gratification.:sad_yes:

OP is egotistic, willful and self-centered and no amount of discussion will change his mind. He has apparently been baptized and confirmed as a Catholic but has had no Catholic education and/or upbringing so his arguments are based on ignorance, which is a pity but does not make him less culpable for his sinful actions. The thought of excommunication is no big deal to him, but he should give some thought to an eternity in Hell.:knight2::knight1:

LOL, this is actually pretty funny. First of all if God reveals to me that masturbation was such a big deal at my judgment I would be like “really…like SERIOUSLY???” It is just that masturbation is so big in Catholicism, but not really a big deal in any other religion. In my opinion, Catholicism isn’t the end all be all of religion or ethics for that matter.

I like the fact that you say that I have had no Catholic upbringing or education. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I went to a Catholic elementary school and high school. And I can assure you that I have studied the Bible and Christianity at a higher level than the great majority of people on these forums. How many of you have taken College level courses on Christianity and the Bible? Probably not the majority.

And as for my upbringing, my mother is a very devout Catholic and goes to church every day. She has instilled in me Catholic values. There is no doubt about that.

Your assumptions are laughable.

But, I don’t just listen to what the Catholic church says and respond “Well if the Catholic Church says it, it MUST be right.” Many priests don’t even have that view.

And thank you for judging my marriage. It is actually quite a nice marriage.

Also I find it hysterical that you call me “egotistic, willful and self-centered.” Why do you say that? Because I don’t consider EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church says to be truth? Well I guess the 6 billion or so non Catholics on the planet are “egotistic, willful and self-centered” as well.

 

[prettylarge]

You do have to be careful to understand that nobody goes to hell unwillingly, protesting that “I didn’t know it was a sin.”

What is a more likely scenario is that at the moment of death the person is given the choice–you knew it was sinful, do you repent–and the person, who COULD choose to repent, marches off to hell defiantly going, “Yes, I knew, but I refuse to apologize and repent. Forever I will be my own god, having chosen to ‘reign in hell’ rather than to humble myself and rejoice in heaven.”

So basically, you are saying that the sin that sends you to hell is pride. Luckily I am not so proud to admit that I am wrong.

 

[chessmane4e5]

But, I don’t just listen to what the Catholic church says and respond “Well if the Catholic Church says it, it MUST be right.” Many priests don’t even have that view.

Also I find it hysterical that you call me “egotistic, willful and self-centered.” Why do you say that? Because I don’t consider EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church says to be truth? Well I guess the 6 billion or so non Catholics on the planet are “egotistic, willful and self-centered” as well.

I think you are being egotistical because of you posts on this forum. If you want to call the Catholic Church egotistical, than is fine, it is your opinion. The Church does say that it is the one true Church, which is a bold claim.

But from what I have read of your posts, you also seem to claim that you know what in bible should be believed, and what shouldn’t. You say for a fact that there is no hell, that Jesus is not divine, etc. These are also bold claims.

The major difference I see is that the founders of the Church were there with Jesus. They were taught by Him.

Also, this is the second time I have seen you claim that there are priests that do not agree with the Church. If this is true, then that is sad, but people do have free will and while it is scandalous that a priest would not agree with the Church, that does not make the Church less than what it is; namely the one true Church of God.

I will say I am questioning your intentions of visiting this site. If you do not believe in the divinity of Christ, then the New Testament is pretty much useless. I mean, everything that was written there is based on the fact that Jesus is God and he died for our sins. Obviously if you do not believe this, then the New Testament is not going to make sense.

 

[prettylarge]

I think you are being egotistical because of you posts on this forum. If you want to call the Catholic Church egotistical, than is fine, it is your opinion. The Church does say that it is the one true Church, which is a bold claim.

But from what I have read of your posts, you also seem to claim that you know what in bible should be believed, and what shouldn’t. You say for a fact that there is no hell, that Jesus is not divine, etc. These are also bold claims.

The major difference I see is that the founders of the Church were there with Jesus. They were taught by Him.

Also, this is the second time I have seen you claim that there are priests that do not agree with the Church. If this is true, then that is sad, but people do have free will and while it is scandalous that a priest would not agree with the Church, that does not make the Church less than what it is; namely the one true Church of God.

I will say I am questioning your intentions of visiting this site. If you do not believe in the divinity of Christ, then the New Testament is pretty much useless. I mean, everything that was written there is based on the fact that Jesus is God and he died for our sins. Obviously if you do not believe this, then the New Testament is not going to make sense.

I didn’t say for a fact that Hell doesn’t exist and that Jesus is not divine. Really I have no idea, and both of those things could very well be true. And I am completely on the fence about Jesus’ divinity to be honest. There is a very good chance that He was divine. I just don’t know if he was the only person ever to have that essence though. I really have no idea.

As for hell, that could exist too. Once again, I don’t know, I just have my own opinions that I have come up with through examining my spirit.

As for priests not believing EVERYTHING the church preaches, I would imagine it is fairly common. It has been my experience with priests that I have talked to at least. You can say what you want, but in my opinion the Pope is a man. Do you think that a pope has never made a mistake? If the church was always right, then there wouldn’t have been a vatican II.

Also to respond to this: “The major difference I see is that the founders of the Church were there with Jesus. They were taught by Him.” To be honest I think Paul is one of the leading founders of the Church and barely knew Jesus disciples (he mentions this in 2 Corinthians) and never met the historical Jesus.

And as for the NT being useless if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus…don’t you think that Jesus’ moral and ethical teachings are valid? Don’t you think that the golden rule is universal? You don’t have to believe that Jesus is God to get something out of the Sermon on the Mount. Gandhi, a Hindu who had great respect for Jesus and Christianity, but did not think that Jesus was God, valued the sermon on the mount tremendously. He loved it and he thought that it was a great ethical teaching. So trust me, you don’t have to believe Jesus is God to get something out of the NT…and I’m surprised you don’t know that.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I didn’t say for a fact that Hell doesn’t exist and that Jesus is not divine. Really I have no idea, and both of those things could very well be true. And I am completely on the fence about Jesus’ divinity to be honest. There is a very good chance that He was divine. I just don’t know if he was the only person ever to have that essence though. I really have no idea.

As for hell, that could exist too. Once again, I don’t know, I just have my own opinions that I have come up with through examining my spirit.

Thank you for clarifying this, from your other posts it did not appear this way/

As for priests not believing EVERYTHING the church preaches, I would imagine it is fairly common. It has been my experience with priests that I have talked to at least. You can say what you want, but in my opinion the Pope is a man. Do you think that a pope has never made a mistake? If the church was always right, then there wouldn’t have been a vatican II.

The pope is a man, as are priests, and they do make mistakes. But you are quoting priests and using that as evidence. Kind of contradicts what you just said.

As for the pope specifically. Yes, 99% of the time he is a man (a holy one as are priests in my belief) but when the pope sits on the throne of Peter, he speaks infallibly.

Also to respond to this: “The major difference I see is that the founders of the Church were there with Jesus. They were taught by Him.” To be honest I think Paul is one of the leading founders of the Church and barely knew Jesus disciples (he mentions this in 2 Corinthians) and never met the historical Jesus.

I agree, Paul was very instrumental in the success of Christianity. But do not play up the fact that he did not know Jesus in the flesh, and down play that Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus (I think) and blinded him. Truly though, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit.

And as for the NT being useless if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus…don’t you think that Jesus’ moral and ethical teachings are valid? Don’t you think that the golden rule is universal? You don’t have to believe that Jesus is God to get something out of the Sermon on the Mount. Gandhi, a Hindu who had great respect for Jesus and Christianity, but did not think that Jesus was God, valued the sermon on the mount tremendously. He loved it and he thought that it was a great ethical teaching. So trust me, you don’t have to believe Jesus is God to get something out of the NT…and I’m surprised you don’t know that.

Sorry to disappoint you then, but I am aware that the bible can be read as a book with good teachings. You misunderstood me. I am wondering why you are questioning some of the teachings, given that I previously thought you did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. I am saying it is pointless to question something you don’t believe. For example, lets say I firmly believe the earth is flat. Then I grab a geography book and start questioning the writers about things that do not make sense. Then when they explain it me, I still question them because I refuse to believe the earth is actually round.

 

[Rolltide]

I am against the church because the hierarchy of sin seems to be completely lopsided towards sexual sin. I feel like masturbation, pre marital sex, and homosexuality are pretty much the most talked about sins, and I don’t feel like they should be.

With regard to at least the seriousness of pre-marital sex, this is not just a Catholic belief. Can you name ANY Christian denomination that does not teach this to be a most serious sin?

 

[thistle]

Well, I will tell that priest that he is ex communicated as soon as I can.

What’s the point in you continuing this discussion. Its obvious to everyone here you have no clue what you are talking about.
You are simply someone who wants to continue sinning and is looking to justify sinning.