Sins Jesus didn't condemn

[Elizium23]

It has occasionally been posited that Jesus accepted homosexuality because He did not preach against it. This is clearly specious. Jesus was a faithful Jew who followed the Law, and furthermore, Mosaic law as was abolished was based on Divine Law, in which is written the sexual morality which God has given us. To say that a prohibition on homosexuality is outdated and abolished is to misunderstand the distinction between Divine and Mosaic Law. It is similar to those who mock our beliefs by asking why we wear fabrics of mixed fibers or eat shellfish.

Anyway, I would like to brainstorm about grave sins that Jesus did not explicitly condemn. Certainly there is a long list of them. It would be useful to refute the above argument if there were good examples of obvious sins for which Jesus did not offer a specific teaching.

 

[Corki]

Starting with the sexual sins: I am pretty sure Jesus did not say anything about marrying your sister, about pornography, or about rape.

Moving out of the bed, I don’t remember any words of Jesus against beating your spouse, destroying the property of others, slandering or “cooking the books” of the businesses you own.

 

[Allegra]

I don’t remember Him specifically preaching against animal abuse.

 

[eightandsand]

It has occasionally been posited that Jesus accepted homosexuality because He did not preach against it. This is clearly specious. Jesus was a faithful Jew who followed the Law, and furthermore, Mosaic law as was abolished was based on Divine Law, in which is written the sexual morality which God has given us. To say that a prohibition on homosexuality is outdated and abolished is to misunderstand the distinction between Divine and Mosaic Law. It is similar to those who mock our beliefs by asking why we wear fabrics of mixed fibers or eat shellfish.

Anyway, I would like to brainstorm about grave sins that Jesus did not explicitly condemn. Certainly there is a long list of them. It would be useful to refute the above argument if there were good examples of obvious sins for which Jesus did not offer a specific teaching.

Catholics believe in Scripture AND Tradition as the sources of Revelation. Everything that Jesus teaches on Homosexuality can be found in what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches on Homosexuality.

 

[Corki]

Jesus never said women couldn’t be priests.

He never said a man or a woman shouldn’t masturbate.

And the first is a sin?

 

[mdgspencer]

Jesus set up the Church to help deal with moral questions, among other things. Jesus in fact after the Last Supper said that he still had many things to tell his disciples that were left unsaid and that when the Holy Spirit comes, “he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:12). And the Bible could hardly be expected to speak of the morality of nuclear weapons, facebook slanders, or downloading copyrighted music. He left the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit he sent for that purpose, to provide guidance in for Catholics in matters important for their souls.
By the way, Saint Paul in his epistles spoke of the sinfulness of homosexual acts, if that helps when it comes to your questions.

 

[Gorgias]

Starting with the sexual sins: I am pretty sure Jesus did not say anything about marrying your sister, about pornography, or about rape.

I think you can make a case for incest from Mt 19:9 – the only case in which divorce isn’t sinful is porneia (or ‘unlawful marriage’); an incestuous marriage would fall under that category.

Is there a reason we’re only sticking to the Gospels here? That is, are we presuming that if Paul said it, but Jesus didn’t (explicitly) do so, then Paul is wrong (in the context of Scripture)? 'Cause Paul certainly talked about fornication, pornography, and sexual sinfulness!

Moving out of the bed, I don’t remember any words of Jesus against beating your spouse, destroying the property of others, slandering or “cooking the books” of the businesses you own.

Again, I would argue that Paul had some pretty strong words about proper marital behavior, respect for property, truthfulness in speech, and upright conduct in financial affairs…

 

[Corki]

Is there a reason we’re only sticking to the Gospels here? That is, are we presuming that if Paul said it, but Jesus didn’t (explicitly) do so, then Paul is wrong (in the context of Scripture)? 'Cause Paul certainly talked about fornication, pornography, and sexual sinfulness!

Yes, because the argument the OP describes is “Jesus never said …” Not so much with homosexuality, but there are some people that claim that Paul, as a misogynist, distorted the real teaching of Jesus. (give me a break)

 

[TimothyH]

arson
abortion
downloading music without paying
graffiti
identity theft
ketchup on hot dogs
mail fraud
mustard on hamburgers
phishing
plagiarism
removing seven books from the bible
wedgies

Weeee, this is fun. The list goes on.

-Tim-

 

[animalis]

The following are mortal sins in a number of situations. Sometimes they could be venial. I will include references for you to read further at newadvent.org/summa/3.htm

Hatred of God (IIa IIae, q.34, a.2)
Unbelief or voluntary doubt ( Ibid. q.10, a.3)
Heresy (Ibid. q. 11, a.1)
Apostacy (Ibid. q. 12, a. 1)
Blasphemy(q. 13, a.2)
Despair (q.20, a.3)
Sloth (q.35, a.3)
Envy (q. 36, a.3)
Discord (q. 37, a. 1)
Contention (q. 38, a.1)
Schism (q.39, a. 2)
Strife (q. 41, a. 1)
Sedition (q. 42, a. 2)
Scandal (q. 43, a. 4)
Imprudence (q.53, a.1)
Negligence (q. 54, a. 3)
Prudence of the flesh (q. 55, a. 2)

There are many more under the vices against the Cardinal Virtues of Justice, Temperance (ie. gluttony q.148, a. 2), and Fortitude. Sins against the Cardinal Virtue of Prudence were mentioned above with those that were against Faith, Hope, and Love.

If anyone has any doubts, for instance how can someone go to hell for eating too much, the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education says in Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis (1970), n. 86: “…]Uphold St Thomas Aquinas as one of the highest teachers of the Church”. This info came from him.

 

[M-Dent]

Starting with the sexual sins…

If one doesn’t seek forgiveness – Jesus mentions them all – “the unchaste.”

I (am) the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water.

The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.

But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

old.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation21.htm

 

[patrick457]

Jesus set up the Church to help deal with moral questions, among other things. Jesus in fact after the Last Supper said that he still had many things to tell his disciples that were left unsaid and that when the Holy Spirit comes, “he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:12). And the Bible could hardly be expected to speak of the morality of nuclear weapons, facebook slanders, or downloading copyrighted music. He left the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit he sent for that purpose, to provide guidance in for Catholics in matters important for their souls.
By the way, Saint Paul in his epistles spoke of the sinfulness of homosexual acts, if that helps when it comes to your questions.

This is also where just going by sola scriptura is apparently not enough. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 does prohibit a man from lying with another man “as he lies with a woman,” but it doesn’t address lesbianism, or even sexual orientations in general. Jesus of course as everyone had said doesn’t speak about homosexuality and has very little to say sexuality in general. St. Paul does condemn the male-to-male practices common in Greco-Roman culture at the time like pederasty and soliciting young male prostitutes), but he hasn’t got anything explicit to say about consensual same-sex relations between adults either. So yeah, even the Scriptures are ambiguous about this stuff, which is where Tradition comes in.

 

[Corki]

Apparently, it is against the law-doctrine of the Catholic church and can never, ever, EVER, be allowed.

.

Of course, if a Bishop attempted to ordain a woman, that would be a sin. But that particular sin IS in Jesus’ words when he gave Peter the keys. Such a Bishop would be guilty of the sin of disobedience at the very least.

Jesus didn’t say women can’t be ordained but neither did he say pigs can’t fly.

Whereas the other “sins” happen frequently to many throughout the past thousands of years and people can confess and be “forgiven” for them.

A Bishop can most certainly be forgiven if he commits this sin.

What would happen to a bishop if he attempted to ordain a woman?
He’ d be fired, I guess, and stripped of his bishop-ness? What are the personal consequences if a bishop goes against doctrine?

Being a Bishop, like being a priest is a permanent change. No one can strip a man of his “bishop-ness”. The current law is that he would incur automatic excommunication. A likely effect would be that he would be transferred out of his current diocese and possibly not reassigned. What happens to the Bishop isn’t a matter of doctrine but part of the disciplinary process in the Church.

It sounds just as bad, if not worse, than the official sin list

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Corki]

ketchup on hot dogs

-Tim-

I have been trying to convince my husband for 20 years of the grave nature of this particular sin. Don’t tell him it’s not in the Bible or I many never get him to repent.

 

[Nelka]

Starting with the sexual sins: I am pretty sure Jesus did not say anything about marrying your sister, about pornography, or about rape.

Moving out of the bed, I don’t remember any words of Jesus against beating your spouse, destroying the property of others, slandering or “cooking the books” of the businesses you own.

He told us to love one another.

Most of the sins that you have mentioned would not be committed if we loved each other.

Not sure what cooking the books is.

 

[Corki]

He told us to love one another.

Most of the sins that you have mentioned would not be committed if we loved each other.

Not sure what cooking the books is.

It’s a slang term for making fraudulent entries in a company’s accounting. It can be done to show a company is more profitable (for example, when selling a business) or less profitable (for example, when calculating taxes owed).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jesus never said women couldn’t be priests.

He never said a man or a woman shouldn’t masturbate.

How can you state this categorically? Are you personally cognizant of every word that Jesus spoke on earth or that He has stated through the ages before His death and resurrection, or every word that the Holy Spirit (who is likewise God just as Jesus is) has spoken through the Church?

Seems to me that you have a very narrow and erroneous opinion of what Jesus ‘said’ or ‘did not say’. . .

 

[Elizium23]

How can you state this categorically? Are you personally cognizant of every word that Jesus spoke on earth or that He has stated through the ages before His death and resurrection, or every word that the Holy Spirit (who is likewise God just as Jesus is) has spoken through the Church?

Seems to me that you have a very narrow and erroneous opinion of what Jesus ‘said’ or ‘did not say’. . .

Since I gave the scope of this thread at my OP, as solely what is recorded in the Gospels as Jesus’s words, then for the sake of argument here it is quite acceptable.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Since I gave the scope of this thread at my OP, as solely what is recorded in the Gospels as Jesus’s words, then for the sake of argument here it is quite acceptable.

Actually, I still contend that since Scripture itself records that it does NOT contain ‘all that Jesus said and did’, one cannot contend that if Jesus did not specifically state X sin in Scripture, He did not explicitly condemn it.

I mean, let’s look at anybody–you, me, other posters. . .

Most of us go through life believing in the moral wrongs of a great many things, but if a person were to look at our letters or diary, or even record our conversations, would they hear us speak of EVERY sin which we believed to be wrong? They would not. But if somebody claimed, based on 'hearing you speak, I NEVER heard you explicitly condemn gluttony". . .would that mean we didn’t actually believe gluttony was wrong? No, it would not.

Jesus is more than the ‘Red Words’ in the Old Testament. Jesus is as much the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as is the Father and the Spirit–and both the Father and the Spirit have condemned sins, explicitly, through Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.

Therefore, if THEY (Father and Spirit) have condemned the sin, then JESUS has also condemned it, for the Father, Spirit, and Christ are ONE.

I’m not trying to be picky, Elizium, but the fact is, you cannot separate Christ and only present a part of Him (the words in Scripture) as being the totality of Him.

We know for a FACT that all Jesus said and did is NOT recorded in Scripture. Why on earth would we then think that we could judge Jesus’ position based on a known INCOMPLETE record?

 

[Elizium23]

Certainly I completely agree with you. I am using the very example of sins that Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn to show the ridiculousness of an argument based upon it. Thank you for proving my point.