jasJis Posted July 11, 2003 Posted July 11, 2003 I think we've moved beyound splitting hairs and are now quartering them.
God Conquers Posted July 11, 2003 Posted July 11, 2003 Ironmonk, I'm not sure your example about the priest and the nazis is correct. Because of the intention of the Nazi to kill the Jews that the priest is hiding, he has no right to know wether or not there are jews hiding there. He has forfeited his right to hear the truth and so it is ok for the priest to say there are no Jews there. The priest isn't lying, but stating the necessary in order for them to survive.
ironmonk Posted July 11, 2003 Posted July 11, 2003 Ah grasshopper, I must disagree, if you note that in the reply to the objections, it clearly states that it is a sin to tell a falsehood even to protect others or self from harm. My example is correct. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm Gravity While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John, xix, 11; Matt., xi, 22; Luke, vi), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5). Specific and numeric distinction of Sin Sins are distinguished specifically by their formally diverse objects; or from their opposition to different virtues, or to morally different precepts of the same virtue. Sins that are specifically distinct are also numerically distinct. Sins within the same species are distinguished numerically according to the number of complete acts of the will in regard to total objects. A total object is one which, either in itself or by the intention of the sinner, forms a complete whole and is not referred to another action as a part of the whole. When the completed acts of the will relate to the same object there are as many sins as there are morally interrupted acts. .... The Church strives continually to impress her children with a sense of the awfulness of sin that they may fear it and avoid it. We are fallen creatures, and our spiritual life on earth is a warfare. Sin is our enemy, and while of our own strength we cannot avoid sin, with God's grace we can. If we but place no obstacle to the workings of grace we can avoid all deliberate sin. If we have the misfortune to sin, and seek God's grace and pardon with a contrite and humble heart, He will not repel us. Sin has its remedy in grace, which is given us by God, through the merits of His only-begotten Son, Who has redeemed us, restoring by His passion and death the order violated by the sin of our first parents, and making us once again children of God and heirs of heaven. Where sin is looked on as a necessary and unavoidable condition of things human, where inability to avoid sin is conceived as necessary, discouragement naturally follows. Where the Catholic doctrine of the creation of man in a superior state, his fall by a wilful transgression, the effects of which fall are by Divine decree transmitted to his posterity, destroying the balance of the human faculties and leaving man inclined to evil; where the dogmas of redemption and grace in reparation of sin are kept in mind, there is no discouragement. Left to ourselves we fall, by keeping close to God and continually seeking His help we can stand and struggle against sin, and if faithful in the battle we must wage shall be crowned in heaven. (See CONSCIENCE; JUSTIFICATION; SCANDAL.) As for what I would call venial, it could be a thought, deed, or a lack of deed. I think failing to pray before eating could be a venial sin. It is a sin that does not destroy chairity or advert us to our last end. <if I was on a prot board this is where I would sign 'Can I get a boo yah!> (i'm "saying" but not "saying" that to make light of the situation in a comaradery way - not meant to sound pompus - and you got a nuggie) I was begining to think I was wrong... then I found the above in the trusty ol'Catholic Encyclopedia. God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary ironmonk
God Conquers Posted July 11, 2003 Posted July 11, 2003 aw, I guess the student has yet much to learn. It just seems so RIGHT! Is culpability at least lowered? How about this situation. Society has starved you and your family, you need to eat so you take a loaf of bread from the government that is starving you. Is this stealing?
ironmonk Posted July 12, 2003 Posted July 12, 2003 aw, I guess the student has yet much to learn. It just seems so RIGHT! Is culpability at least lowered? How about this situation. Society has starved you and your family, you need to eat so you take a loaf of bread from the government that is starving you. Is this stealing? Yes. Just as it says in one of the objections that stealing to give alms to the poor is wrong. But if someone is starving, it is likly that they're not going to be of sound mind. So I would think that it would be venial, but I'm not sure... and is it worth the risk... It all comes down to relying on God, not ourselves. We must last until the end. God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary ironmonk
Guest Douglas Posted July 12, 2003 Posted July 12, 2003 St. Thomas works everything out; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/311003.htm Look at these statements
Anna Posted July 12, 2003 Posted July 12, 2003 Yes. Just as it says in one of the objections that stealing to give alms to the poor is wrong. But if someone is starving, it is likly that they're not going to be of sound mind. So I would think that it would be venial, but I'm not sure... and is it worth the risk... It all comes down to relying on God, not ourselves. We must last until the end. God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary ironmonk In certain governments, such as in war-torn areas in Africa, where guerilla run "governments" rule....It is actually the government which steals food which was intended as relief aid for the people. If they could steal it back, it wouldn't be a sin, as it was intended for them in the first place... Is this the sort of scenario you are thinking of? Because in that case, it is the government, (or as you put it, society) which is guilty of stealing. Pax Christi. <><
musturde Posted July 18, 2003 Author Posted July 18, 2003 Some mortal sins are worse than other mortal sins, even though they are both 'mortal'. Killing 100 men is worse than lying. So I could easily kill the people I a going to lie to and it would be better than lying to them? *Kill FrenzY* :ph34r:
cmotherofpirl Posted July 18, 2003 Posted July 18, 2003 aw, I guess the student has yet much to learn. It just seems so RIGHT! Is culpability at least lowered? How about this situation. Society has starved you and your family, you need to eat so you take a loaf of bread from the government that is starving you. Is this stealing? If you are starving you can stake for to sustain yourself. That is not stealing.
Chrysologus Posted July 18, 2003 Posted July 18, 2003 St. Thomas Aquinas isn't an infallible source of theology. There were several things he got wrong.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now