F
fix
Guest
That is not even possible.
- Status
M
mgoforth
Guest
Sorry, Fix, but I have to disagree.
*1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. *
All sins can ultimately be traced back to the moral law, written on our consciences.
*1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. *
This is not to say that the way Ronald is attempting to use the principle is correct… However, sin is sin. Sometimes it can have varying degrees of severity, based on our knowledge and consent, but it always offends God, so it’s always sin.
Sorry to get off topic, but I’ve noticed the same thing come up several times in this thread.
B
Bookcat
Guest
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
He is not saying, “Do not proclaim the truth.” He is saying, “Sometimes in our zeal for truth, we can express it in ways that either people cannot hear, or in ways that prove dismissive at best or violent/destructive at worst. Both failures to preach the truth accurately (and lets be honest, they are failures) need to be amended so that the most people as possible can both hear and receive the truth.” When people object to statements like this, it always sounds to me like they’re saying, “But why can’t I use the harshest possible terms to teach God’s all-embracing and deathless love? Why can’t I continue to cling (in all obvious humility, of course, though with all the crushing or dismissive force I can muster) to asserting my own correctness against other’s wrongness?” And it makes no sense to me at all.
The truth can, by its nature, be difficult to receive. It can be painful. It can devastate our illusions. But this is where compassion, counsel, bearing each other’s burdens, and doing penance on behalf of others who may not yet know to do it themselves can prove particularly useful and bear much fruit.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
I’m sure Ronald will reply to this and will correct me if I’m off base, but I wanted to point out that that is precisely not what I read him to be saying.
He is not saying, “Do not proclaim the truth.” He is saying, “Sometimes in our zeal for truth, we can express it in ways that either people cannot hear, or in ways that prove dismissive at best or violent/destructive at worst. Both failures to preach the truth accurately (and lets be honest, they are failures) need to be amended so that the most people as possible can both hear and receive the truth.” When people object to statements like this, it always sounds to me like they’re saying, “But why can’t I use the harshest possible terms to teach God’s all-embracing and deathless love? Why can’t I continue to cling (in all obvious humility, of course, though with all the crushing or dismissive force I can muster) to asserting my own correctness against other’s wrongness?” And it makes no sense to me at all.
The truth can, by its nature, be difficult to receive. It can be painful. It can devastate our illusions. But this is where compassion, counsel, bearing each other’s burdens, and doing penance on behalf of others who may not yet know to do it themselves can prove particularly useful and bear much fruit.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
M
mgoforth
Guest
To relate what you’re saying to the topic of the thread, consider this question: Is the new amendment to the NC consitution (or any civil authority banning homosexual marriage) violent or destructive? That’s the way I originally read Ronald’s characterization of it. Certainly it would be ideal if we could sit down patiently with each person for whom this is an issue, and explain the eternal Truth of our beliefs and if we could get through to everyone. That’s what we’re called to do when possible. But as I said before, it’s not practically possible in every situation, with every person.
We should also try to sit down with everyone we see who gets really angry with another person, or really jealous of them. But that’s not always possible either. Therefore we have laws against assault, murder, theft, slander, etc…
Oh, I can hear the responses already.
“You’re equating murder with same-sex marriage?” Yes. It’s spiritual murder/suicide for both parties, because it turns them away from God…whether they realize it or not. And if we read the Pope’s homily, which was linked to earlier, it says that we need to transform ourselves so that we see everything in the world in terms of spiritual impacts, not merely physical. We need to look at every choice as a choice to embrace God, or to reject Him. This issue is no exception.So for the same reason I’m glad there are harsh penalties to disuade people from murdering others (which is for the good of the murderer as much as his victims), I’m also happy to see this amendment pass. The true purpose is to protect everyone in society - homosexual persons first and foremost!
L
Lapey
Guest
I agree with you, but the definition of compassion and love is not to lie. We as Catholics must preach the truth, with love and with compassion in season and out. We cannot if we represent the Catholic Church teachings come to a public forum, whether it be here of on the street and say and do things that are contrary to the truth, that is not compassion nor is it truth. Learn what the truth is and preach it, yes some will have their illusions shattered, that’s where we come in to help them cope with THE TRUTH. Not help them feel better about their choices, we are supposed to feel guilt and feel sick at times when we come to realize we have acted wrongly.
We Americans have so many ways of helping each other feel better for our choices, sex addiction, porn addiction, sugar addiction, etc. The one addiction we cannot admit we truly have is not taking personal responsibility for our actions. This is where our problem is. People do not know how to cope with failure anymore, why do you think so many turn to suicide or lashing out in violence? Because nobody tells them they are wrong, with love and truth. Heck, we don’t even take score in little league anymore in the name of love, the loser can’t know they have lost, that’s unfair. Sad, just sad.
Homosexuality is as wrong as me, a married deacon, going to bed with every woman I see as attractive and will have me, or to put it in closer terms; there is this woman at work who really loves me, and I love her, so it must be okay. No matter what it does to my family and my relationship with God.
Here is the issue, marriage is marriage. There is only one definition up to now, defined by the Church, not government. If we as a society change that meaning, then I am filing suit so I can also marry the cute little lady at work! I guess I’ll have to sue the Church too, since they are so mean as to not allow an ordained man his right to be married again.
This is silly, to have to argue these topics with fellow Catholics, I can see with other faiths and atheists, but with Catholics? One truth, it is found in His Church, learn it then live; then always preach it and when needed use words!
B
Bookcat
Guest
“Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ.”
-Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html
-Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Deacon, I see what you see very clearly. It is obvious that you do not “see” what I see. With what you know and see I understand your position and I do not say you are wrong from your understanding. I was at that understanding. It is no coincidence that my development in our faith has taken me to this perspective because it is the result of God’s Love that I am here. It is the mystery of His Love that drives me to discern how that Love is to be expressed in each situation. It is the passion to know His Love which influences me to identify what is love and what fear. Because my education and experience are focused on the understanding of interpersonal dynamics and interpersonal neurobiology, my perspective is going to be different from those who are not familiar with this area. Many times I run into prejudicial judgments because I reveal this. The weight of the suffering of others is a heavy burden when God opened me to His Love because His Love added a dimension of empathy within me that I had never experienced before. Love is not a soft feeling, it is a passionate feeling of empathy for all who suffer and it is overwhelming at times to feel the weight of that suffering even when I am out on isolated canal roads doing a Rosary Run and all of a sudden the heaviness will hit me and I will have to walk for a while just asking God to direct me.There is no virtue called “don’t say anything because it may offend someone to point out their sins.” I’ve backed out of this thread and our PM conversation until now mostly because I’ve been tied up at work and home but also because it is so frustrating to argue these topics, especially with Catholics, who will not listen to anything but their own intelligence and training. I’m sorry but we will answer to God, not books or our own opinions!
Are you really saying that if I tell you that you are sinning by living in a homosexual relationship and supporting the intrinsic evil of gay marriage that makes me a sinner? I was a sinner before you pointed that out by the way, but that is not the sin. In fact it could be a sin of omission if I don’t tell you by your support of SSM you are sinning; it may be then that I sin.
It is our duty as brothers and sisters to point out these things to move closer to Christ, not to tolerance of sin, but absence of it.
You have stated many times how “you’ve seen” so much hurt perpetrated by people on others by telling them the truth. Well I ask you, was it the truth that caused the hurt or the way in which it was delivered. I believe in many ways we are saying the same things, then at times we speak opposites; I know I’m confusing at times. If the message is truth and delivered with love and by the guidance of His Holy Spirit, it will produce good fruit, that my brother I have seen many times. On the other hand, if it is not the truth and it is delivered with love it is not guided by the Holy Spirit because Scripture tells us the Spirit will not lead us into untruth; is it really love? What is the fruit? Is it a temporary happiness or euphoria which will deflate in time? Love does not lie, or support lies. Love and charity is what brings hope.
It is pretty simple; we don’t need doctorate degrees to see truth. Pointing out sin and helping our brothers and sisters see their errors is our duty as Catholics. This is what Paul is explaining in that scripture you have retranslated, 1 Corr. It is not judgment to point out sin. This is your confusion. Also it is your confusion to see civil law as binding with Catholics when it comes against the Church, as in this case of the unjust law of same sex marriage. We are bound to follow just laws, not unjust laws.
…and by the way, with your standards of labeling sin, when you point out that I sin by telling others they are sinning you are sinning…wow, I think I am confused now.
I will leave this discussion now. There is a book written by Monsignor Guardini entitled “The Lord”. The chapters pertaining to justice are absolutely beautiful. The introduction is written by Cardinal Ratzinger.
F
fix
Guest
What the poster claimed was that one may be personally culpable for a sin even though they had no intention to sin. That is not possible.
There is a difference between objectively sinful deeds and lack of subjective guilt, but that is another topic.
The CCC quotes refer to cuplable and non culpable ignorance. That is not what we are talking about in that post.
IOW, one cannot be subjectively culpable for a sin that was done by “accident”.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Mark, You have a gift with words which I do not. Thank you for the clarity which I lack.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
…since the USCCB’s position against the health mandate was couched predominantly in the terms of the modern liberal state…the Church in America has no real leg to stand on when it tries to articulate a stance that is clearly opposed to the terms of the modern liberal state that it had so enthusiastically embraced previously. I.e., by buying into the wrong terms of debate over the health mandate, the Church loses all credibility when it attempts to argue against them and from it’s own terms in the same sex marriage debate. With reference to the HHS debate, one poster writes: “What the bishops should have done is act like successors to the apostles, not acolytes of the Goddess of Liberty.”
As another commenter in that VN discussion pointed out, somehow Amercian Catholics from the beginning of the American Republic believed that the American state enterprise was compatible with the Catholic faith, despite the Vatican’s clear objections to the principles on which a democratic state are “naturally” (according to Enlightenment thinking) founded. The Vatican’s objections were absolutely correct if the modern liberal state and Christianity’s general (Catholic and Protestant) collusion with it is any indication.
Which is to say that the rationale behind state laws against murder is* fundamentally different* from the rationale behind “Thou shalt not kill” and “love thy neighbor” and “love thine enemy.” The one has everything to do with not infringing on individual liberty conceived in modern terms according to a post-Enlightenment understanding of natural rights which flow from that individual liberty; the other has to do, in part, with an understanding of human dignity as related to the image of God. The religious rationale may appear at times to overlap with the state rationale, but to confuse the two is naive at best, destructively delusional at worst.
In other words: religious arguments for or against the legislative action which the modern liberal state may take are irrelevant to the modern liberal state. And the more such arguments are made to appear relevant to the state (i.e., by reducing them to terms the state can understand), the less reflective they will be of the religious principles which are actually supposed to undergird them, leading to situations like that described above with reference to the USCCB, the health mandate, and same sex marriage.
That these arguments are irrelevant to the state does not make them less true. It means that standing up for the truth must begin to look substantially different than colluding with the modern liberal state on the terms on which the sacred can be discussed. It means something far more radical than applauding or decrying the people of NC or the rhetoric of a political incumbent.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
M, I think the danger in the above (and which shoots through this entire discussion) is in the confusion between the goals and ends of the modern liberal state and the goals and ends of the Catholic faith and the subsequent willingness to recast the latter in the terms of the former. As I wrote in my comment earlier today (at the bottom of the previous page) citing the article and discussion on Vox Nova:…]Oh, I can hear the responses already.
So for the same reason I’m glad there are harsh penalties to disuade people from murdering others (which is for the good of the murderer as much as his victims), I’m also happy to see this amendment pass. The true purpose is to protect everyone in society - homosexual persons first and foremost!
…since the USCCB’s position against the health mandate was couched predominantly in the terms of the modern liberal state…the Church in America has no real leg to stand on when it tries to articulate a stance that is clearly opposed to the terms of the modern liberal state that it had so enthusiastically embraced previously. I.e., by buying into the wrong terms of debate over the health mandate, the Church loses all credibility when it attempts to argue against them and from it’s own terms in the same sex marriage debate. With reference to the HHS debate, one poster writes: “What the bishops should have done is act like successors to the apostles, not acolytes of the Goddess of Liberty.”
As another commenter in that VN discussion pointed out, somehow Amercian Catholics from the beginning of the American Republic believed that the American state enterprise was compatible with the Catholic faith, despite the Vatican’s clear objections to the principles on which a democratic state are “naturally” (according to Enlightenment thinking) founded. The Vatican’s objections were absolutely correct if the modern liberal state and Christianity’s general (Catholic and Protestant) collusion with it is any indication.
Which is to say that the rationale behind state laws against murder is* fundamentally different* from the rationale behind “Thou shalt not kill” and “love thy neighbor” and “love thine enemy.” The one has everything to do with not infringing on individual liberty conceived in modern terms according to a post-Enlightenment understanding of natural rights which flow from that individual liberty; the other has to do, in part, with an understanding of human dignity as related to the image of God. The religious rationale may appear at times to overlap with the state rationale, but to confuse the two is naive at best, destructively delusional at worst.
In other words: religious arguments for or against the legislative action which the modern liberal state may take are irrelevant to the modern liberal state. And the more such arguments are made to appear relevant to the state (i.e., by reducing them to terms the state can understand), the less reflective they will be of the religious principles which are actually supposed to undergird them, leading to situations like that described above with reference to the USCCB, the health mandate, and same sex marriage.
That these arguments are irrelevant to the state does not make them less true. It means that standing up for the truth must begin to look substantially different than colluding with the modern liberal state on the terms on which the sacred can be discussed. It means something far more radical than applauding or decrying the people of NC or the rhetoric of a political incumbent.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
(There’s more to compassion and love than that [we can start by thinking of them in positive, not simply negative terms!], though I feel you actually already know that.)
I think in many ways the terms of the argument are not understood by most participating in it, which muddies the water a bit and demands clarification. Many good Catholic folks buy into both a modern liberal political perspective (whether it be market liberal or social liberal, they’re both based on the same notions of individual liberty as an absolute value) as well as a Catholic Christian perspective. But those perspectives are really quite incompatible with each other. However, debates over same sex marriage or healthcare or what have you usually tend to confuse the perspectives which only serves to place politically conservative Catholic folks (for instance) on the same spectrum as prosperity gospel protestants and investment bankers on one end and Maoist communists on the other. Which is a shame, because the truth of Catholic Christianity is nowhere near that spectrum–and many people feel this, though they’re unable to articulate it, though they *still *wind up willingly placing themselves on the broken and lower spectrum when they’re elated or depressed that the modern liberal state has done or refrained from doing one thing or another. It creates an internal tension in Christianity (let alone Catholicism) that sooner or later must be resolved: either by opposition to the modern liberal state, or complete collusion. We cannot afford to serve two masters.
Someone earlier on this thread derided sw85 for saying he was a monarchist. But to be honest (which is to move in the direction of love and compassion
), being a monarchist is more conducive to a truly Catholic and Christian worldview than one might think…
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
There’s that “but” again…
(There’s more to compassion and love than that [we can start by thinking of them in positive, not simply negative terms!], though I feel you actually already know that.)
Of course. The substance of the preaching is not the issue. The terms of the preaching are…
Rev. Deacon, please see my response to mgoforth immediately above.
I think in many ways the terms of the argument are not understood by most participating in it, which muddies the water a bit and demands clarification. Many good Catholic folks buy into both a modern liberal political perspective (whether it be market liberal or social liberal, they’re both based on the same notions of individual liberty as an absolute value) as well as a Catholic Christian perspective. But those perspectives are really quite incompatible with each other. However, debates over same sex marriage or healthcare or what have you usually tend to confuse the perspectives which only serves to place politically conservative Catholic folks (for instance) on the same spectrum as prosperity gospel protestants and investment bankers on one end and Maoist communists on the other. Which is a shame, because the truth of Catholic Christianity is nowhere near that spectrum–and many people feel this, though they’re unable to articulate it, though they *still *wind up willingly placing themselves on the broken and lower spectrum when they’re elated or depressed that the modern liberal state has done or refrained from doing one thing or another. It creates an internal tension in Christianity (let alone Catholicism) that sooner or later must be resolved: either by opposition to the modern liberal state, or complete collusion. We cannot afford to serve two masters.
Someone earlier on this thread derided sw85 for saying he was a monarchist. But to be honest (which is to move in the direction of love and compassion
), being a monarchist is more conducive to a truly Catholic and Christian worldview than one might think…Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
With due respect, rossum, it sounds that you are working on the assumptions that all Americas should regard:
- homosexual relations = heterosexual relations
- homosexuals are entitled to “marry” their same sex parters
- all of the society and the world will just have to follow suit
- else, homosexuals are being discriminated
Those on this side of the debate maintain that the private good of homosexuals (gay ‘marriage’ entitlement) does not translate to public interest and that civil accommodation of gay ‘marriage’ or legal union is not unjust discrimination
You were the one who brought up immigration.
Unless my information is wrong, nationals in the following countries are already free to petition for their foreign same sex ‘spouses’ to any one of these nations where English is spoken as first or second language: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom.
U.S. and state laws are being used and played with for special interests and narrow agendas. The law is not moving fast enough for a segment of the population but it is being changed way too fast for many others.
Further, the immigration angle is tricky, as I would think the Department of Homeland Security should be so concerned. It is another avenue of abuse that could very well have problems in administration and execution of policy leading to disasters. Not unlike the entry point by undesirables who managed to get student visas, to get trained in the U.S. with the intention of using American planes as weapons to kill 3,000 on our shores. We are not talking about excluding would be good immigrants on the basis of sexual orientation.
,
H
Holly3278
Guest
I am not the OP and I am the one with the dancing emoticon. And yes, this makes me so happy I could dance with joy. That said, technically it kind of does include my rights as I do suffer from temptations toward the same sex. However, I battle against those temptations and I am chaste.
E
ekk1
Guest
can you cite an example of a ruling which appears to be judicial fiat? all of the decisions which i have reviewed have been carefully crafted and coherent, far from being arbitrary. your point is well made that civil rights are rarely obtained through popular vote. this has always been so in the US.
… and yet, nobody has pointed to any interest which the government has in this matter. So, how can the discrimination not be considered “unjust”.
it is nearly a truism that laws never seem to change fast enough for those who feel discriminated against, and that they also change too rapidly for those who resist social progress. we have seen this repeatedly.
M
Midwest88
Guest
jsmooth995.tumblr.com/post/22844318552/on-marriage-equality-and-symbiotic-evolution
The power of youtube and micro-blogging is powerful.
The power of youtube and micro-blogging is powerful.
L
Lapey
Guest
WOW, just WOW…I’m speachless…
M
mitex
Guest
This is about the fifth time I’ve had to post this lol,
Sources The Tablet, NOM, New Zealand, Iona Institute
Sources The Tablet, NOM, New Zealand, Iona Institute
F
fix
Guest
The Vatican says differently. Who you gonna trust?
- Status