Unitarians on sin

[simpleas]

I wondered what arguement/defence a catholic would give to someone who believes the text below?
Thanks.

“Sin” is a word with baggage attached. That is why Unitarians often avoid it, or use it only sparingly. But this does not mean that we pay no attention to the issues the word involves.
A Unitarian view of sin might be this: to sin is wilfully to act, speak, or even think in a way that ones own conscience condemns as wrong. Alternatively, sin is the failure to act, speak or think in ways that one knows to be right. Or again, to sin is to fall short of the standards of conduct that ones own faith or ethical system regards as ideal. It is missing the mark that we set ourselves. And because we all fall short in this way, there is no room for smugness, self-satisfaction, and self-righteousness.
Although Unitarians may not like to use the word “sinners”, we would agree that we are all imperfect, flawed beings when set beside our models of the ideal. However, we generally take the view that sin is essentially a personal thing. Each one of us is responsible for himself or herself, although the consequences of our sin will affect others, both now and in the future.
The remedy for sin is a process of contrition, repentance, and forgiveness. That is, true regret, a turning away from what conscience condemns, and a loving acceptance of the sinner. The giving and receiving of forgiveness – including self-forgiveness – are necessary for healing to take place. Through forgiveness (human or divine) the wholeness and fellowship that sin fractures are restored. Unitarians believe that we must always be ready to forgive. It is no part of our practice to load people with guilt. A burden of guilt is destructive both spiritually and psychologically.
The notion that we human beings inherit a burden of sin from Adam and Eve – that we are conceived in sin and born sinners – finds no favour with Unitarians. We are more likely to see the story of the Fall in Genesis as a mythic portrayal of every persons journey. It represents the life-journey from the innocence of infancy through the harsh transition of adolescence to adulthood and the awakened conciousness of sexuality, responsibility, and mortality. Unitarians see no inherent or inherited guilt or depravity here, no need for blood-sacrifice to buy back the soul. Jesus, Unitarians affirm, lived out his message of selfless love to the bitter end. Our own sin, our own false and selfish consciousness, is overcome inasmuch as we too can live lovingly and selflessly, no matter what the cost.

---

Text taken for ‘Unitarian? What’s That?’ by Rev. Cliff Reed. For full text click here.

 

[John_Lazarus]

I wondered what arguement/defence a catholic would give to someone who believes the text below?
Thanks.

“Sin” is a word with baggage attached. That is why Unitarians often avoid it, or use it only sparingly. But this does not mean that we pay no attention to the issues the word involves.
A Unitarian view of sin might be this:** to sin is wilfully to act, speak, or even think in a way that ones own conscience condemns as wrong.** Alternatively, sin is the failure to act, speak or think in ways that one knows to be right. Or again, **to sin is to fall short of the standards of conduct that ones own **faith or **ethical system **regards as ideal. It is missing the mark that we set ourselves. And because we all fall short in this way, there is no room for smugness, self-satisfaction, and self-righteousness.

So as long as you’re a True Believer™ in your particular ethos – Satanism, Nazism, Charles Mansonism – it’s all good?

 

[Brigid34]

This, in my memory, is accurate of many Unitarians belief (said because there are a multitude of beliefs by Unitarians).

When I was young my family went to the Unitarian church and weren’t taught the beliefs of the Unitarians. We played with clay, we visited the local synagogue, etc. My brother who was in high school gave a speech to the congregation about why he wasn’t Unitarian. In it he spoke of Unitarians being afraid to believe in anything.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi simpleas, nice to get a fresh start on something!

I wondered what arguement/defence a catholic would give to someone who believes the text below?
Thanks.

Interesting start. “defence”?

Are you thinking that some Unitarian is going to knock on your door, and try to drag you into their spirituality? That would be rather un-unitarianish.

As far as “arguing” a different view of God, that is probably a little silly and likely fruitless, as we experienced on the Original Sin thread. I think that there is cause to challenge a way of thinking if it appears contradictory or perhaps counterproductive (Note: productive = promotes the Kingdom). Perhaps the question is, do the Unitarians promote anything that diminishes the Kingdom? I’d be hard-pressed to find something, personally. On the other hand, Unitarians can be so tolerant that “anything goes” in some respect, but I have never known a Unitarian racist or one who is any different than I am in terms of compassion. However, the Unitarians appear to support a woman’s “right to choose” abortion, and I have some major reservations about that stance. My wife and I have several friends who belong to a Unitarian congregation, they are usually Jewish/Christian marriages or some other mixture. We never “talk religion” with them.

“Sin” is a word with baggage attached. That is why Unitarians often avoid it, or use it only sparingly. But this does not mean that we pay no attention to the issues the word involves.
A Unitarian view of sin might be this: to sin is wilfully to act, speak, or even think in a way that ones own conscience condemns as wrong. Alternatively, sin is the failure to act, speak or think in ways that one knows to be right. Or again, to sin is to fall short of the standards of conduct that ones own faith or ethical system regards as ideal. It is missing the mark that we set ourselves. And because we all fall short in this way, there is no room for smugness, self-satisfaction, and self-righteousness.
Although Unitarians may not like to use the word “sinners”, we would agree that we are all imperfect, flawed beings when set beside our models of the ideal. However, we generally take the view that sin is essentially a personal thing. Each one of us is responsible for himself or herself, although the consequences of our sin will affect others, both now and in the future.

What is to “defend” from a Catholic view? We don’t have a problem using the word “sin” or “sinner”, at least I don’t. As you know, I don’t see that God gets offended by our behaviors, but we certainly get offended, and hurtful behaviors do indeed happen!

Fundamentalists use “sin” in very condemning ways, so that is probably the aversion to its use. But are we Catholics to allow fundamentalists to have the say on the implications of the word “sin”? Not me.

The remedy for sin is a process of contrition, repentance, and forgiveness. That is, true regret, a turning away from what conscience condemns, and a loving acceptance of the sinner. The giving and receiving of forgiveness – including self-forgiveness – are necessary for healing to take place. Through forgiveness (human or divine) the wholeness and fellowship that sin fractures are restored. Unitarians believe that we must always be ready to forgive. It is no part of our practice to load people with guilt. A burden of guilt is destructive both spiritually and psychologically.

I agree with all of the forgiveness part, except I would add that forgiveness also involves understanding why I would do exactly what the other did.

As far as “loading people with guilt”, I am not totally opposed. Guilt is a natural human reaction, and its purpose is to modify behaviors. I would love all behavior modification to center on empathy, but empathy development is a rather slow process, and in the mean time guilt is a great motivator (or demotivator).

For Catholics, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a sign of the whole forgiveness/reconciliation process, and it can also be a catalyst. All people can benefit from the Sacrament.

The notion that we human beings inherit a burden of sin from Adam and Eve – that we are conceived in sin and born sinners – finds no favour with Unitarians. We are more likely to see the story of the Fall in Genesis as a mythic portrayal of every persons journey. It represents the life-journey from the innocence of infancy through the harsh transition of adolescence to adulthood and the awakened conciousness of sexuality, responsibility, and mortality. Unitarians see no inherent or inherited guilt or depravity here, no need for blood-sacrifice to buy back the soul. Jesus, Unitarians affirm, lived out his message of selfless love to the bitter end. Our own sin, our own false and selfish consciousness, is overcome inasmuch as we too can live lovingly and selflessly, no matter what the cost.​

Text taken for ‘Unitarian? What’s That?’ by Rev. Cliff Reed. For full text click here.

As you may remember, I don’t have the slightest idea what a “selfless” act is. All of our behaviors are well-intended acts that benefit the self in some way, even when the behavior only triggers “good feelings about myself.”

As you know, it is difficult to talk people out of hanging onto their guilt and condemnation. As long as a person carries this baggage, it is extremely difficult for them to see our own condition as anything other than one of guilt or depravity. We are all born with the capacity for sin, and that works fine for me in terms of “original sin”. The capacity to sin is in our genes.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

I was really impressed by what a priest once said about ecumenism. He said, (paraphrased) “many people try to put different denominations together, by doing a lot of give-and-take compromise of positions. However, since none of our institutions are perfect, I think that it is more fruitful for all of the institutions to continue to grow toward God, including our own. We will all come closer together, even unified, this way.”

 

[simpleas]

So as long as you’re a True Believer™ in your particular ethos – Satanism, Nazism, Charles Mansonism – it’s all good?

I don’t think they would welcome such practises into their fold. They seem to allow various people of faiths to come together to worship God, and not have to believe in any one system.
I don’t know much about them really.

 

[simpleas]

Hi simpleas, nice to get a fresh start on something!

Interesting start. “defence”?

Are you thinking that some Unitarian is going to knock on your door, and try to drag you into their spirituality? That would be rather un-unitarianish.

As far as “arguing” a different view of God, that is probably a little silly and likely fruitless, as we experienced on the Original Sin thread. I think that there is cause to challenge a way of thinking if it appears contradictory or perhaps counterproductive (Note: productive = promotes the Kingdom). Perhaps the question is, do the Unitarians promote anything that diminishes the Kingdom? I’d be hard-pressed to find something, personally. On the other hand, Unitarians can be so tolerant that “anything goes” in some respect, but I have never known a Unitarian racist or one who is any different than I am in terms of compassion. However, the Unitarians appear to support a woman’s “right to choose” abortion, and I have some major reservations about that stance. My wife and I have several friends who belong to a Unitarian congregation, they are usually Jewish/Christian marriages or some other mixture. We never “talk religion” with them.

What is to “defend” from a Catholic view? We don’t have a problem using the word “sin” or “sinner”, at least I don’t. As you know, I don’t see that God gets offended by our behaviors, but we certainly get offended, and hurtful behaviors do indeed happen!

Fundamentalists use “sin” in very condemning ways, so that is probably the aversion to its use. But are we Catholics to allow fundamentalists to have the say on the implications of the word “sin”? Not me.

I agree with all of the forgiveness part, except I would add that forgiveness also involves understanding why I would do exactly what the other did.

As far as “loading people with guilt”, I am not totally opposed. Guilt is a natural human reaction, and its purpose is to modify behaviors. I would love all behavior modification to center on empathy, but empathy development is a rather slow process, and in the mean time guilt is a great motivator (or demotivator).

For Catholics, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a sign of the whole forgiveness/reconciliation process, and it can also be a catalyst. All people can benefit from the Sacrament.

As you may remember, I don’t have the slightest idea what a “selfless” act is. All of our behaviors are well-intended acts that benefit the self in some way, even when the behavior only triggers “good feelings about myself.”

As you know, it is difficult to talk people out of hanging onto their guilt and condemnation. As long as a person carries this baggage, it is extremely difficult for them to see our own condition as anything other than one of guilt or depravity. We are all born with the capacity for sin, and that works fine for me in terms of “original sin”. The capacity to sin is in our genes.

(continued)

Hello again!

Ha, no I was talking to my friend and she mentioned her Father goes to this church, so I asked what was the unitarian church, and she said we let anyone from any faith come, and don’t force them to believe in Jesus.
So I did alittle googling and came across sin, maybe the words arguement/defence are the wrong words I used.
As catholics we accept we are sinners, so what we would believe is sin, they may not, they may see it as getting on with life, if you are not hurting anyone in the process. But we would need to admit there was sin and therefore confess to receive forgiveness etc.
So I wondered how I could explain why I see sin where they would not, and not feel like I was being controlled by a belief system…if you get what I mean?

 

[holyrood]

to sin is wilfully to act, speak, or even think in a way that ones own conscience condemns as wrong. Alternatively, sin is the failure to act, speak or think in ways that one knows to be right. Or again, to sin is to fall short of the standards of conduct that ones own faith or ethical system

So as long as you’re a True Believer™ in your particular ethos – Satanism, Nazism, Charles Mansonism – it’s all good?

Good point. My first thought was that their statement sounds quite like the Catholic position, really, minus calling it sin. I have a friend who views ‘sin’ very much the same as the Unitarian statement given, but his beliefs do include doing good for others, etc. His beliefs and values were very much formed by his Catholic upbringing, so I guess it ‘works’ in his case. But you’re right. If someone’s values are different…everything changes.

In it he spoke of Unitarians being afraid to believe in anything.

I think there’s some truth to this. Perhaps because of the belief in ‘open-mindedness’ and ‘tolerance.’ When those beliefs are carried to a certain point, it becomes difficult for an individual to believe in anything definitively, himself. I had a friend who was enamored of ‘always searching, always questioning.’ That sounds great, but I asked him if he wants to be always searching and questioning, what happens when he does find the Truth, and keeps right on searching instead of resting in it?

I don’t think they would welcome such practises into their fold. They seem to allow various people of faiths to come together to worship God, and not have to believe in any one system.
I don’t know much about them really.

I’m not sure. They don’t require any belief in anything. And if they declare certain people’s beliefs ‘wrong’ or ‘bad,’ I would think that goes against all they portray themselves to be, as welcoming all people of all faiths and beliefs, rather than declaring one system to be true.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello again!

Ha, no I was talking to my friend and she mentioned her Father goes to this church, so I asked what was the unitarian church, and she said we let anyone from any faith come, and don’t force them to believe in Jesus.
So I did alittle googling and came across sin, maybe the words arguement/defence are the wrong words I used.
As catholics we accept we are sinners, so what we would believe is sin, they may not, they may see it as getting on with life, if you are not hurting anyone in the process. But we would need to admit there was sin and therefore confess to receive forgiveness etc.
So I wondered how I could explain why I see sin where they would not, and not feel like I was being controlled by a belief system…if you get what I mean?

So… probably an example is necessary. Where do you see a sin and they do not?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The definition of sin in Scripture, is to miss the mark. The analogy often used was an archer aiming for his target, but misses.

In this context, sin takes on a different dimension.

Too many in this forum are so focused on sin, they miss the good news in Jesus Christ.

They see themselves as unworthy, but others as even less worthy.

It’s why people find places like the Unitarian Church more welcoming than Christianity.

God loves us, irrespective of our worth.

Jesus mercy and compassion should be our focus, for only through his grace can we be transformed into holy people.

If we focus on Jesus, we will stop sinning because our love for him will transcend our desire to give into temptation.

Jim

 

[simpleas]

to sin is wilfully to act, speak, or even think in a way that ones own conscience condemns as wrong. Alternatively, sin is the failure to act, speak or think in ways that one knows to be right. Or again, to sin is to fall short of the standards of conduct that ones own faith or ethical system

Good point. My first thought was that their statement sounds quite like the Catholic position, really, minus calling it sin. I have a friend who views ‘sin’ very much the same as the Unitarian statement given, but his beliefs do include doing good for others, etc. His beliefs and values were very much formed by his Catholic upbringing, so I guess it ‘works’ in his case. But you’re right. If someone’s values are different…everything changes.

I think there’s some truth to this. Perhaps because of the belief in ‘open-mindedness’ and ‘tolerance.’ When those beliefs are carried to a certain point, it becomes difficult for an individual to believe in anything definitively, himself. I had a friend who was enamored of ‘always searching, always questioning.’ That sounds great, but I asked him if he wants to be always searching and questioning, what happens when he does find the Truth, and keeps right on searching instead of resting in it?

I’m not sure. They don’t require any belief in anything. And if they declare certain people’s beliefs ‘wrong’ or ‘bad,’ I would think that goes against all they portray themselves to be, as welcoming all people of all faiths and beliefs, rather than declaring one system to be true.

Came across this :

*Unitarianism is an open-minded and individualistic approach to faith that gives scope for a very wide range of beliefs and doubts.

Religious freedom for each individual is at the heart of Unitarianism. Everyone has the right to search for meaning in life and reach their own conclusions.

Unitarians see diversity and pluralism as valuable rather than threatening. They want faith to be broad, inclusive, and tolerant. Unitarianism can therefore include people who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan and Atheist.*

They believe God is one…not 3 persons. Seems they use the bible, and various books but do not believe Jesus was God.

 

[simpleas]

So… probably an example is necessary. Where do you see a sin and they do not?

Ok, maybe I see sin because I’m told it is sinful.
Contraception for one…
It is sinful because it prevents life, in an ideal world it along with abortion would not exist, but they do.

Prevention is better than cure as they say.

So a unitarian person can believe they are spiritual, believing or not in a God, without being made to feel guilt, that they have not lived up to Gods standards. But why would they as they don’t believe in O.S anyway, or that Jesus was God.

PS just for the record, I don’t believe in abortion.

 

[simpleas]

The definition of sin in Scripture, is to miss the mark. The analogy often used was an archer aiming for his target, but misses.

In this context, sin takes on a different dimension.

Too many in this forum are so focused on sin, they miss the good news in Jesus Christ.

They see themselves as unworthy, but others as even less worthy.

It’s why people find places like the Unitarian Church more welcoming than Christianity.

God loves us, irrespective of our worth.

Jesus mercy and compassion should be our focus, for only through his grace can we be transformed into holy people.

If we focus on Jesus, we will stop sinning because our love for him will transcend our desire to give into temptation.

Jim

Yes but to be christian is to believe in O.S, which is past on. We can not escape it. Unitarians do not believe in O.S, and so if they do not have to believe they live sinfully in ways our church teach us we would be, then free churches will win.
They talk alot about freedom, spirituality. We seem to reflect alot on how we are sinners.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes but to be christian is to believe in O.S, which is past on. We can not escape it. Unitarians do not believe in O.S, and so if they do not have to believe they live sinfully in ways our church teach us we would be, then free churches will win.
They talk alot about freedom, spirituality. We seem to reflect alot on how we are sinners.

Original sin is not sin in the sense of individual fault, but rather, the consequence of sin committed by the first humans which is passed on to the entire human race.

CCC

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Jim

 

[InLight247]

Talking love without striving for holiness is a deceit. It says in 1 Peter 1:16, “Be holy because I am holy.” It is not that the Catholics like to emphasize sin. It is that sin and holiness are opposite to each other; sin opposes love. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy (sin), it does not boast (sin), it is not proud(sin). It does not dishonor others (sin), it is not self-seeking (sin), it is not easily angered (sin), it keeps no record of wrongs (holding grudges, sin). Love does not delight in evil (sin) but rejoices with truth. When we talk about love, we could not ignore sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Ok, maybe I see sin because I’m told it is sinful.
Contraception for one…
It is sinful because it prevents life, in an ideal world it along with abortion would not exist, but they do.

Prevention is better than cure as they say.

So a unitarian person can believe they are spiritual, believing or not in a God, without being made to feel guilt, that they have not lived up to Gods standards. But why would they as they don’t believe in O.S anyway, or that Jesus was God.

PS just for the record, I don’t believe in abortion.

I see your point. I think they see “God’s standards” a little differently, though, and they are looking at life through their own experiences.

The doctrine stating that Natural Family Planning is any more natural than any other form of contraception is a long, complicated, and weakly formed science. I think that pointing out such “sin” to the unwary Unitarian would be met with tolerance.

Would it be worth bringing it up? There are issues far, far, more important than contraception.

 

[simpleas]

I see your point. I think they see “God’s standards” a little differently, though, and they are looking at life through their own experiences.

The doctrine stating that Natural Family Planning is any more natural than any other form of contraception is a long, complicated, and weakly formed science. I think that pointing out such “sin” to the unwary Unitarian would be met with tolerance.

Would it be worth bringing it up? There are issues far, far, more important than contraception.

We all look at life through our own experiences though. We all have experienced pain, suffering in different forms, noones life is ever the same as anothers.

Yeah if I pointed it out to my friend she would most likely say I believe in nfp because I’ve been brought up catholic, and listen to what the pope tells me…I know people who are not catholic would also choose nfp over artificial means, its not just a catholic thing.
But to say to my friend, you shouldn’t have premartial sex and take the pill, I wouldn’t do this. Am i failing as a christian in some respect?
Or is it just the fundmentalist catholics that would say to their friends that they should or shouldn’t behave in such a manner?

Anyway, it was only an example of what is deemed sinful in respect of our beliefs.

My question was how to respond to people who see our beliefs as a control system, with not much freedom to think for ourselves?
Its going back to a full informed conscience again. Is our consciences ever informed fully enough to allow us to be able to make our own decisions about our own lives, without being made to feel we have offended God. Because to sin, is to offend God according to the ccc.

I would think that our consciences are always forming through our life, I thought differently in my 20’s to what I think now in my 30’s. So my conscience is still developing.

 

[Lochias]

Doesn’t sound like the Unitarians believe in much at all, really.

They sound, frankly, like a social club of some sort. If that’s what cranks their cage, more power to 'em, but I can’t say I could call them a “church” and actually believe that they were.

Why do they need a group label like “Unitarian” if what they espouse is “let’s not espouse any one thing as better than any others”?

 

[OneSheep]

We all look at life through our own experiences though. We all have experienced pain, suffering in different forms, noones life is ever the same as anothers.

Yeah if I pointed it out to my friend she would most likely say I believe in nfp because I’ve been brought up catholic, and listen to what the pope tells me…I know people who are not catholic would also choose nfp over artificial means, its not just a catholic thing.
But to say to my friend, you shouldn’t have premartial sex and take the pill, I wouldn’t do this. Am i failing as a christian in some respect?

Have you ever watched the movie “Oh brother, where art thou?”. In the movie, there is a character whose Christianity is definitely focused on correcting others. Empathy, unfortunately, and awareness, and definitely forgiveness are not part of this character’s spirituality. The movie is my all-time favorite, and it is for many of us who have experienced the Christianity of “finger-pointing”. I think the movie will go down in history as an icon of Americana. It is that good.

Or is it just the fundmentalist catholics that would say to their friends that they should or shouldn’t behave in such a manner?

Sex outside of a life commitment is an error. Why doesn’t she get married? She may have a child, regardless of the birth control. Is her boyfriend willing to raise a child with her? If not, why would she rather raise a child without a Dad? Chances are, there is going to be at some point an irrational response (i.e. "everyone else is doing it, times have changed). But are these questions are being asked from a position of “What you are doing is wrong.” or from the position of “I am concerned for your wellbeing and happiness, is what you are doing making sense?”?. The first voice is of the compulsion to condemn what we see as wrongdoing, the conscience. The second voice is that of compassion and empathy. Be willing to accept the answer to “is what you are doing making sense?”. Moralizing goes nowhere unless someone buys into the authority. An appeal to reason goes straight to the conscience. Be open to the idea that some people have been brought up in the shadow of some extremely dysfunctional marriages.

Anyway, it was only an example of what is deemed sinful in respect of our beliefs.

My question was how to respond to people who see our beliefs as a control system, with not much freedom to think for ourselves?

My response is “everyone finds helpful some guidance in their own moral development”. I would grant that the challenge is valid for those who do not eventually find the freedom to think for themselves. Why do people fail to break free from the “control system”? Fear, I think. Some people say fear is the opposite of faith, but I think fear can play a role earlier in our development. Love, the development of empathy and growing in awareness of the presence of God in everyone, casts out all fear.

Its going back to a full informed conscience again. Is our consciences ever informed fully enough to allow us to be able to make our own decisions about our own lives, without being made to feel we have offended God. Because to sin, is to offend God according to the ccc.

I would think that our consciences are always forming through our life, I thought differently in my 20’s to what I think now in my 30’s. So my conscience is still developing.

It sounds like God, as you know Him, gets offended. Makes sense. We all get offended sometimes. But we all, with the help of Abba, hopefully get over the offense and forgive, and the process is enhanced by really understanding the standpoint of the person who offended us. Does God, being omniscient, have to go through the same process of getting over offenses? To me, God knows that we are going to sin, and God knows when we are going to sin. If we know what is coming, do we take offense? God knew what was coming when He created us, and did so anyway.

Perhaps all the offense-taking was done well before He created any human. The rest is, well, living with His decision, which I perceive was a good one.

 

[InLight247]

My question was how to respond to people who see our beliefs as a control system, with not much freedom to think for ourselves?

Is a belief a control system? Before answering that, we must know the meaning of freedom.

Does freedom mean everyone can do whatever he wants? We know that’s not so; otherwise the world will be a total chaos. That’s why there are laws, regulations, and rules to follow. Would you say people live in a country with reasonable laws have no freedom?

Freedom is not without boundary. Proper boundary is for everyone’s protection. True freedom does not mean everyone can do whatever he likes, but everyone does the right thing without trespassing. That’s the way of a civilized society. Without boundary, no one has true freedom.

It is the same way for our belief system. The moral teachings of the Church help us to form proper conscience so everyone may follow God’s commandments and our community may have true freedom.

One of the best things of the Catholic Church is her teaching authority. This authority is from God. Following God’s commandments is not being controlled; it brings blessing and gives us true freedom.