B
Bookcat
Guest
The Government already impinges on us!
NO the lust is always a grave sin. Lying is sinful – but it is often not grave.
Oh and by the way the grave sin of lying is ALREADY often a criminal offense in every State.
- Status
NO the lust is always a grave sin. Lying is sinful – but it is often not grave.
Oh and by the way the grave sin of lying is ALREADY often a criminal offense in every State.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
No, it’s not. You can tell all the whoppers you want, unless you are doing it as part of a plan to separate someone from a thing of value they own, it’s not a crime. The only place lying is a crime is in perjury.
If lying were against the law, just lying itself, every person in America would be behind bars.
B
Bookcat
Guest
What I said is the case.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
So is what I said.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Julia Mae,
Not everyone is Catholic, or Chrisian - but, amazingly all of humanity is bound with the Natural Law.
Many disagree with the Catholic Church - after all, what can the Bride of Christ teach the world which has already determined its destination?
Sacramental marriage - one man and one woman in the union blessed by God through His Church is what we have. There is chastity of the single state and chastity of the married state. None of this ‘impinges on anyone’s freedom’ - those who chose to violate the Natural Law have already tied themselves into knots which is a major freedom killer. But, that is the very nature of sin in that it limits us.
Here is what the Catholic Church teaches:
*1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. *
God bless
Not everyone is Catholic, or Chrisian - but, amazingly all of humanity is bound with the Natural Law.
Many disagree with the Catholic Church - after all, what can the Bride of Christ teach the world which has already determined its destination?
Sacramental marriage - one man and one woman in the union blessed by God through His Church is what we have. There is chastity of the single state and chastity of the married state. None of this ‘impinges on anyone’s freedom’ - those who chose to violate the Natural Law have already tied themselves into knots which is a major freedom killer. But, that is the very nature of sin in that it limits us.
Here is what the Catholic Church teaches:
*1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. *
God bless
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes and that is one place where in particular lying is a grave sin …
one can of course think of all sorts of other criminal offenses that are grave sins of lying --fraud for example. …
The point was often lies are venial sins. The ones that are grave sin are often contrary to the law such as perjury…fraud…some serious misrepresenting of something in business or the practice of medicine etc etc etc
B
Bookcat
Guest
"President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family.
However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.
I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons."
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York
usccb.org/news/2012/cardinal-dolan-president-obama-remarks-on-marriage-deeply-saddening.cfm
However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.
I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons."
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York
usccb.org/news/2012/cardinal-dolan-president-obama-remarks-on-marriage-deeply-saddening.cfm
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Well what “natural law” would that be? The same that other species are subject to? the natural state of vertebrate species that shows same gender sexual behaviors in all of the ones studied (except possibly orangutans)? I hear your opinions. Problem is, you want EVERYONE to be subject to what you have chosen to believe when they have not. This abrogates their freedom. That’s wrong. The Church says so.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your misunderstanding what is meant by natural law.
And what the Catholic Church teaches here.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
“Fraud” (see my previous post) is one of the examples of lying to gain a thing of value. The crime is actually the theft.
No, the point is that Jesus thought lying was such a terrible thing, He used that specific sin to name evil personified.
If the argument is being made that gays being married is a sin, then we should be equally going about trying to make ALL lying a crime.
But we don’t. Because we want to lie. Because we think it’s so common it’s no big deal. Because it seems foolish.
Lying and gossip and trying to make a fool out of someone and ridiculing the weak, ignoring the desperate for our own comfort, all these things are the true and terrible sins of humankind. What people of same gender do in the bedroom doesn’t begin to compare.
25,000 people a day die of starvation in this world. When everyone celebrating the vote ITT tells me how they have given up something important in their lives to feed the starving people of Africa and other places, I’ll really start respecting the “sin” argument.
Take the logs out of your own eyes, people. Your time would be better used.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
You’ll notice that I never once advocated being “nice,” but I did implicitly suggest that it is our job to embody the Deathless Love of Christ. We both know that niceness is easy and meaningless. Love is hard. Violence is easy. Compassion takes effort. So if you think that the call to embody the Deathless Love of Christ means being “nice,” then I would suggest that your perception of what that Deathless Love might be is slightly skewed. Love demands of us extraordinary sacrifice–dismissing those demands as mere “niceness” because we are in love with our own violent rhetoric and our own rightness is just a way of avoiding those demands, avoiding living into the high calling, the great responsibility to which to which Love calls us all.
It strikes me as strange how closely we tend to cling to and defend a rhetoric of us/them, of you losers and us winners, of power, of violence, and how quick we can be to justify it as prophetic when such things are challenged. In the Light of the Resurrection, such rhetoric is revealed to be paltry rags. We can defend those rags all we like, with as much passion and conviction as we dare, but I don’t think those rags will pass muster as proper attire when we attempt to enter the great banquet of love to which our Lord calls us.
Happy Easter, Tom.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Tom, of course the Law of God is worth standing up for, but if we insist on standing up for it by using the terms, tools or tactics of power, death and violence, then I’m afraid we’re providing poor witness to it and are, in reality, standing up for our own perception of our own correctness as opposed to the Law of God. That is, in fact, the gist of what I wrote in that post.
You’ll notice that I never once advocated being “nice,” but I did implicitly suggest that it is our job to embody the Deathless Love of Christ. We both know that niceness is easy and meaningless. Love is hard. Violence is easy. Compassion takes effort. So if you think that the call to embody the Deathless Love of Christ means being “nice,” then I would suggest that your perception of what that Deathless Love might be is slightly skewed. Love demands of us extraordinary sacrifice–dismissing those demands as mere “niceness” because we are in love with our own violent rhetoric and our own rightness is just a way of avoiding those demands, avoiding living into the high calling, the great responsibility to which to which Love calls us all.
It strikes me as strange how closely we tend to cling to and defend a rhetoric of us/them, of you losers and us winners, of power, of violence, and how quick we can be to justify it as prophetic when such things are challenged. In the Light of the Resurrection, such rhetoric is revealed to be paltry rags. We can defend those rags all we like, with as much passion and conviction as we dare, but I don’t think those rags will pass muster as proper attire when we attempt to enter the great banquet of love to which our Lord calls us.
Happy Easter, Tom.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Julia Mae,
I gave you the teaching of the Catholic Church - and you simply dismiss it by claiming this is not what is taught.
Plase give me the link that supports the view you claim to be the teaching of the Catholic Church.
God bless
I gave you the teaching of the Catholic Church - and you simply dismiss it by claiming this is not what is taught.
Plase give me the link that supports the view you claim to be the teaching of the Catholic Church.
God bless
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Actually, there are few people here better acquianted with natural law than myself.
Or, are you referring to some phrase the Church uses? Which is a religious argument, as I have said. In which case, again, you want to make people act in accordance with your beliefs.
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
Obviously that is where your problem lies. You set aside the philosophical and moral use of the term for that of the some other science. Mixing apples with oranges.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I’m sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to without a link to the posts in question. However, the Church is irrelevant in terms of this issue. In fact, the constant references to the Church sort of prove my point. You want to impose Church teaching on society at large by using civil laws. That’s wrong. Is that what you want me to support? That the Church says it’s wrong to force our beliefs on others? Do you really need a link to know that?
We are supposed to preach the Gospel, not legislate it.
B
Bookcat
Guest
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I don’t have a problem. I am entirely clear on Church teaching. I am also entirely in support of separation of Church and State and freedom of choice.
Every argument made here is based on religion. Trying to make other people adhere to our religious beliefs is wrong. Do you think it’s right?
If the Jews gain power, is it okay if they get a law passed saying all male babies must be circumcised? If Muslims become the majority will you stop driving because it’s a sin for women to do so?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such is misunderstanding certain aspects of the Christians very vocation.
B
Bookcat
Guest
A misunderstanding of separation of Church and State according to the American Founders…and a misunderstanding of the nature of freedom and Church Teaching. Or so it would seem here.
- Status