Sins against purity/chasity

[ChiRho]

You say you feel sorry for those students but you talk about them with great disrespect. Where is the Christian charity and Christ like manner? I wonder if those you taught sensed your anger, outrage and disgust and learned anything at all.

There’s nothing uncharitable about his description – it is an accurate assessment. He’s simply calling them ignorant of what is right —as he said “they just don’t know better” – and hopes that he and others can help them to know Christ better. Christ didn’t tell the prostitute that what she was doing wasn’t wrong, but that she should be forgiven and then to go and sin no more. Christ was consistently harsh with people – saying that those who did one thing or another were better off being drowned at the bottom of the sea, and that those who do not join his banquet will suffer with wailing and gnashing of teeth. This is not antithetical to love either. Charity does not mean not calling a spade a spade. This of course doesn’t mean that you’ll tell someone who is blinded by folly that they are dressing like a tramp, or that whatever sin they are committing is deeply offensive because many are unlikely to admit their own sin if confronted with it. But naming the sin in the company of others (i.e. this forum) is perfectly appropriate I think

 

[Walking_Home]

There’s nothing uncharitable about his description – it is an accurate assessment. He’s simply calling them ignorant of what is right —as he said “they just don’t know better” – and hopes that he and others can help them to know Christ better. Christ didn’t tell the prostitute that what she was doing wasn’t wrong, but that she should be forgiven and then to go and sin no more. Christ was consistently harsh with people – saying that those who did one thing or another were better off being drowned at the bottom of the sea, and that those who do not join his banquet will suffer with wailing and gnashing of teeth. This is not antithetical to love either. Charity does not mean not calling a spade a spade. This of course doesn’t mean that you’ll tell someone who is blinded by folly that they are dressing like a tramp, or that whatever sin they are committing is deeply offensive because many are unlikely to admit their own sin if confronted with it. But naming the sin in the company of others (i.e. this forum) is perfectly appropriate I think

---

Purity of heart/mind --ChiRho—Purity of heart/mind. Strive for purity of heart and mind.

 

[ChiRho]

---

Purity of heart/mind --ChiRho—Purity of heart/mind. Strive for purity of heart and mind.

What of my post does your post reference? I don’t think I advocated not being pure of heart and mind, but it’s wrong to think that externals are irrelevant to your heart and mind, and certainly wrong to think that they’re irrelevant to the hearts and minds of others

 

[Lilsheep88]

Just a question… is it a sin to make fun of LGBT people?

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Purity of heart/mind --ChiRho—Purity of heart/mind. Strive for purity of heart and mind.

What of my post does your post reference? I don’t think I advocated not being pure of heart and mind, but it’s wrong to think that externals are irrelevant to your heart and mind, and certainly wrong to think that they’re irrelevant to the hearts and minds of others

---

Well ChiRho – the more we purify our heart and mind – the less the “externals” will affect us.

In case you may have missed the following by Pope John Paul II-- when it has been posted prior. Your sin is yours – just like my sin is mine – and neither you or I - or anyone else can go around transferring responsibility for the sin – blaming others as the cause of the sin. There are some who have chosen to turned a blind eye and deaf ear to this.

POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY

Personal Sin and Social Sin

1. Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested-even though in a negative and disastrous way-also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.

 

[severus68]

There’s nothing uncharitable about his description – it is an accurate assessment. He’s simply calling them ignorant of what is right —as he said “they just don’t know better” – and hopes that he and others can help them to know Christ better. Christ didn’t tell the prostitute that what she was doing wasn’t wrong, but that she should be forgiven and then to go and sin no more. Christ was consistently harsh with people – saying that those who did one thing or another were better off being drowned at the bottom of the sea, and that those who do not join his banquet will suffer with wailing and gnashing of teeth. This is not antithetical to love either. Charity does not mean not calling a spade a spade. This of course doesn’t mean that you’ll tell someone who is blinded by folly that they are dressing like a tramp, or that whatever sin they are committing is deeply offensive because many are unlikely to admit their own sin if confronted with it. But naming the sin in the company of others (i.e. this forum) is perfectly appropriate I think

I am confused. We should not say someone is dressed like a tramp but it is ok to say that they dress like sluts and put their goodies on display?

 

[severus68]

Just a question… is it a sin to make fun of LGBT people?

Why would it not be a sin? It would be a sin to make fun of anyone.

 

[ChiRho]

I am confused. We should not say someone is dressed like a tramp but it is ok to say that they dress like sluts and put their goodies on display?

This of course doesn’t mean that you’ll tell someone who is* blinded by folly ***that they are dressing like a tramp, or that whatever sin they are committing is deeply offensive because many are unlikely to admit their own sin if confronted with it. But naming the sin in the company of others (i.e. this forum) is perfectly appropriate I think

you might not tell someone who dresses like a tramp that they dress like a tramp, because people in general are predictably egotistical and would rather take offense than correct their error; but it doesn’t make it any less true that they are dressing like a tramp. I see nothing uncharitable about the previous poster calling a spade a spade. And if you think the person you’d like to correct could hear the harsh words (if their personality and ego suits it), go ahead and tell them the unvarnished truth

 

[ChiRho]

---

Well ChiRho – the more we purify our heart and mind – the less the “externals” will affect us.

In case you may have missed the following by Pope John Paul II-- when it has been posted prior. Your sin is yours – just like my sin is mine – and neither you or I - or anyone else can go around transferring responsibility for the sin – blaming others as the cause of the sin. There are some who have chosen to turned a blind eye and deaf ear to this.

I don’t believe in blaming others for a person’s sin. Blame rests solely on the person who commits it. But that doesn’t mean certain factors don’t contribute to a person feeling the need to sin, or ignoring their conscience, etc. If a parent is mean to their child all their life, and the kid grows up to be angry at them (which is sinful), the child is guilty of their sin. But if the parent had avoided their sin, their child’s sin might not have ever happened (as the portion you did not bold indicates).

This is what it means to live in a community. You are concerned with your own sins, preventing them and seeking forgiveness, and you should also be concerned with helping others not to fall into temptations, patterns or addictions which could lead to sin. No man is an island, and whereas good actions help everyone, bad ones do too. Admitting this is not the same as blaming someone for my sins.

This is discussed at length by St. Paul in Corinthians

 

[Walking_Home]

you might not tell someone who dresses like a tramp that they dress like a tramp, because people are predictably egotistical and would rather take offence than correct their error; but it doesn’t make it any less true that they are dressing like a tramp. I see nothing uncharitable about the previous poster calling a spade a spade. And if you think the person you’d like to correct could hear the harsh words (if their personality and ego suits it), go ahead and tell them the unvarnished truth

---

I don’t think telling someone — they dress like a “tramp”, “slut”, “filth”-- is what our Pope meant to have a Christ like attitude. And neither is it Christ like – to do it behind their backs.

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Dear young people,

I am happy to be with you in Madison Square Garden. Today this is a garden of life, where young people are alive: alive with hope and love, alive with the life of Christ. And it is in the name of Christ that I greet each one of you today.

I have been told that most of you come from Catholic high schools. For this reason I would like to say something about Catholic education, to tell you why the Church considers it so important and expends so much energy in order to provide you and millions of other young people with a Catholic education. The answer can be summarized in one word, in one person, Jesus Christ. The Church wants to communicate Christ to you.

1. This is what education is all about, this is the meaning of life: to know Christ. To know Christ as a friend: as someone who cares about you and the person next to you, and all the people here and everywhere—no matter what language they speak, or what clothes they wear, or what color their skin is.

And so the purpose of Catholic education is to communicate Christ to you, so that your attitude toward others will be that of Christ. You are approaching that stage in your life when you must take personal responsibility for your own destiny. Soon you will be making major decisions which will affect the whole course of your life. If these decisions reflect Christ’s attitude, then your education will be a success.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t believe in blaming others for a person’s sin.** Blame rests solely on the person who commits it. But that doesn’t mean certain factors don’t contribute to a person feeling the need to sin, or ignoring their conscience, etc.** If a parent is mean to their child all their life, and the kid grows up to be angry at them (which is sinful), the child is guilty of their sin. But if the parent had avoided their sin, their child’s sin might not have ever happened (as the portion you did not bold indicates).

This is what it means to live in a community. You are concerned with your own sins, preventing them and seeking forgiveness, and you should also be concerned with helping others not to fall into temptations, patterns or addictions which could lead to sin. No man is an island, and whereas good actions help everyone, bad ones do too. Admitting this is not the same as blaming someone for my sins.

This is discussed at length by St. Paul in Corinthians

---

You are still attributing blame on the “factors”— and this we are not to do.

 

[ChiRho]

---

I don’t think telling someone — they dress like a “tramp”, “slut”, “filth”-- is what our Pope meant to have a Christ like attitude. And neither is it Christ like – to do it behind their backs.

I strongly doubt the pope was referring to whether or not someone dressed immodestly (which is sinful), but rather whether or not they dressed finely (i.e. judging people on their income or personal wealth). This is especially likely because Christ mentions several times not judging people on their wealth or stature in society.

 

[ChiRho]

---

You are still attributing blame on the “factors”— and this we are not to do.

No, I am saying that if externalities influence behavior that we don’t like, it makes sense to try to reduce those externalities. No social scientist on earth would say that you should treat problems as if they occur in a vacuum. Each problem affects another, and this is not blaming other factors (i.e. saying that a person is not culpable for their own actions), it is a plan for successfully eradicating problems.

And I am not arguing that a person who sins should also count on help from others in helping him avoid the sin – it’s clear that most aren’t interested in helping their fellow man out

 

[Walking_Home]

I strongly doubt the pope was referring to whether or not someone dressed immodestly (which is sinful), but rather whether or not they dressed finely (i.e. judging people on their income or personal wealth). This is especially likely because Christ mentions several times not judging people on their wealth or stature in society.

---

“Or the clothes they wear” — those were his words ChiRho. He had opportunity to make reference to certain modes of dress – if he had the intention to. Nice try though.

 

[Walking_Home]

No, I am saying that if externalities influence behavior that we don’t like, it makes sense to try to reduce those externalities. No social scientist on earth would say that you should treat problems as if they occur in a vacuum. Each problem affects another, and this is not blaming other factors (i.e. saying that a person is not culpable for their own actions), it is a plan for successfully eradicating problems.

And I am not arguing that a person who sins should also count on help from others in helping him avoid the sin – it’s clear that most aren’t interested in helping their fellow man out

---

You are still doing it. No matter how many circles you turn – it comes back – to making someone else responsible.

 

[ChiRho]

---

“Or the clothes they wear” — those were his words ChiRho. He had opportunity to make reference to certain modes of dress – if he had the intention to. Nice try though.

The pope was referencing three external factors that are irrelevant towards sin: the language you speak is not sinful, whether you wear lederhosen or turbans is not sinful, and whether you are black or white is not sinful.

Furthermore, the pope had spoken numerous times on modest dress, he doesn’t have to account for every possible misinterpretation or exception to his words every time he says something. Does the pope mean you can use “dirty language” and not be judged? Obviously not. He means language in its simple, morally-neutral meaning. The same as in clothing. He is obviously not stating that immodest clothes are condoned, and it is a fallacious argument to assume because he did not mention something specific in a quote only a few sentences long that it speaks for his entire body of work.

to wit:

Here the pope is, apparently blaming people for others sins:

Since sensuality, which is oriented towards “the body as an object of enjoyment” is in general stronger and more important in men, modesty and shame-the tendency to conceal sexual values specifically connected with the body-must be more pronounced in girls and women.

from Love and Responsibility

 

[ChiRho]

---

You are still doing it. No matter how many circles you turn – it comes back – to making someone else responsible.

No, it doesn’t. You are presenting a false dichotomy: either I have to say the person is wrong and no one else ever influenced them, or I must say that they are entirely innocent and that society is 100% guilty.

That’s not how it works: I can say a person is wrong and is also influenced by other factors.

 

[Walking_Home]

I strongly doubt the pope was referring to whether or not someone dressed immodestly (which is sinful), but rather whether or not they dressed finely (i.e. judging people on their income or personal wealth). This is especially likely because Christ mentions several times not judging people on their wealth or stature in society.

---

Another thing ChiRho – “modesty” varies by culture. And depending on who is doing the talking and “looking”. There are some — whose idea of “modesty” is to obliterate the female form – turning a woman into a shapeless lump-- under long sleeved/ankle length/to the neck – layers of loose clothing. Anything less is “immodest” and “sinful”. So you see one cultures view of modesty varies from another culture — and even from one person to another.

 

[Walking_Home]

No, it doesn’t. You are presenting a false dichotomy: either I have to say the person is wrong and no one else ever influenced them, or I must say that they are entirely innocent and that society is 100% guilty.

That’s not how it works: I can say a person is wrong and is also influenced by other factors.

---

All you and I have to say – is that each one of us – is responsible for our own sins – no ifs, ands or buts.

 

[ChiRho]

---

Another thing ChiRho – “modesty” varies by culture. And depending on who is doing the talking and “looking”. There are some — whose idea of “modesty” is to obliterate the female form – turning a woman into a shapeless lump-- under long sleeved/ankle length/to the neck – layers of loose clothing. Anything less is “immodest” and “sinful”. So you see one cultures view of modesty varies from another culture — and even from one person to another.

Varying interpretations of modesty do not mean that the concept is meaningless. It’s the same thing as saying because not everyone can agree on what words are curse words, the entire concept of curse words is meaningless and people can $%&@ this and #@%^ that all they want. 100% agreement on every minute detail and circumstance of what exactly modesty and clean language entail is not needed to know that modesty and clean language are admirable traits. Cultures of the world show us this