Endorsing Sin, Even Venial Is Going Against Church Teachings

[qfnol31]

Aren't sending someone back and helping them back different things?

It seems that sending them back is implying not working with their free will while helping them back works with it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='971888' date='May 4 2006, 11:10 PM']
Aren't sending someone back and helping them back different things?

It seems that sending them back is implying not working with their free will while helping them back works with it.
[/quote]

this is tangental.

[Resurrexi]

would it be a mortal sin to say sin x or sin y is are not sins?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='972358' date='May 5 2006, 11:20 AM']

this is tangental. [/quote]

So are ad hominems.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='972602' date='May 5 2006, 01:34 PM']
would it be a mortal sin to say sin x or sin y is are not sins?
[/quote]

It would depend on how you see sin x or sin y. If for example you know that they are sins but nonetheless, declare them as not sins, but then it still depends on the gravity of the sins. If on the other hand, you don't know that they are sins, then you may not be culpable of any. Yet, still again depending on the the gravity.

[quote]Philosophical Sin

Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin. Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment, are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain that in the present order of God's providence there are morally bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in his condemnation of the following proposition: "Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free transgession of the Divine law. However grievous it may be, philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor worthy of eternal punishment" (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290).

This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present dispensation of God's providence we are clearly taught in Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free will of man (Romans 2:5-11). There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has power over man's free will and actions, so that from the fact that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly, and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is necessarily also a transgression of God's law. Cardinal de Lugo (De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God, but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the present order of God's providence there cannot be invincible ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality. [i] Catholic Encyclopedia[/i][/quote]

Edited May 5, 2006 by AngelofJesus

[Jaime]

[quote] 1868
Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.[/quote]

Is defending someone who is prochoice (by calling them prolife) protecting them thereby sinning by cooperating in the sin of abortion?


Its a rhetorical question.

[Cam42]

Oh don't make it rhetorical....I want to see how he answers this......

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='982621' date='May 16 2006, 01:27 PM']Is defending someone who is prochoice (by calling them prolife) protecting them thereby sinning by cooperating in the sin of abortion?


Its a rhetorical question. [/quote]

Ooooh, I'm gonna bite.

I only supported Bush insofar as he was closer to prolife than his opponents and only materially supported his wrong stance.

I admit he was wrong, but I will still bait you and say that pro-choice isn't entirely accurate.

But you know me.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='983248' date='May 16 2006, 08:03 PM']
Ooooh, I'm gonna bite.

I only supported Bush insofar as he was closer to prolife than his opponents and only materially supported his wrong stance.

I admit he was wrong, but I will still bait you and say that pro-choice isn't entirely accurate.

But you know me.
[/quote]

So in effect he is the lesser evil of evil? I am beginning to think saying Bush is pro-life also isn't entirely accurate. He let Terri Schiavo die, and when the courts overturned the partial abortion ban he did and said very little and I've heard little since. And what about the "Gay" marriage ban?!?! Bush = do nothing, at best he's a wussy rolling over and letting pro-choicers say whats what.

Edited May 17, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Jaime]

Well see if you can answer what Ironmonk is afraid to

Does the Catholic definition of prolife support abortion in any instance?


Does President Bush support abortion for any reason?



I have not said that Bush is on equal par with Kerry or with others. But he is still prochoice

[Jaime]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='983788' date='May 17 2006, 02:08 PM']
Someone who claims "moral superiority" believes themselves to be morally superior... morally better than someone else.

Debating if something is a sin or not, such as disobediance when 2 of 3 Cardinals say "don't do it" and 1 of 3 Cardinals basically say "don't do it unless you have a solid understanding of the faith", has nothing to do with "moral superiority", it has to do with what the Church teaches. Obeying the Church does not mean someone is morally superior. Disagreeing on right and wrong is a legitimate debate...

Some people here cannot discuss ideas with sound reason. Some people could be trying to defend their error, pride is one of the seven deadly sins that satan does use.

Those who have a problem with adding the facts (also known as 'reading between the lines') and logical thinking tend to get hot headed and throw insults when they can't back what they claim with Church teachings.


If I'm wrong, then show it with the Catechism, Church Documents, etc... I am totally Catholic, therefore I listen and obey the Church. I am not a rebel Catholic, nor will I ever be.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]


You know I thought this was so good, it should be brought over to this thread.


And let's see if Ironmonk will apply the words he espouses so passionately to himself. Or will pride win?

[b]
Does the Catholic definition of prolife support abortion in any form Ironmonk?[/b]


[b]Does President Bush support abortion in any form?[/b]


[b]Is Bush Prolife according to Church teachings?[/b]







And for the record I'm not pressing this to be a butthat. Ironmonk has called me a liar for stating Church teachings on this particular subject. And as he's clearly stated, it is proper to correct error.

[Jaime]

Funny and sad how the people who claim that I am wrong have nothing to show except their personal opinions. I'm not going off my personal opinion, I'm following the Church. Surely it is phishy to claim that disobedience is acceptable for a Catholic.

[Jaime]

IM you said I was a liar by saying Bush is prochoice. You said I was leading people away from the faith by saying so.

I ask that you answer the three questions and have the courage to follow your own words that I've posted.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='983850' date='May 17 2006, 04:35 PM']
Funny and sad how the people who claim that I am wrong have nothing to show except their personal opinions. I'm not going off my personal opinion, I'm following the Church. Surely it is phishy to claim that disobedience is acceptable for a Catholic.
[/quote]



Nice statement......wonder where you got it!!!!!

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='983807' date='May 17 2006, 03:31 PM']
You know I thought this was so good, it should be brought over to this thread.
And let's see if Ironmonk will apply the words he espouses so passionately to himself. Or will pride win?

[b]
Does the Catholic definition of prolife support abortion in any form Ironmonk?[/b]
[b]Does President Bush support abortion in any form?[/b]
[b]Is Bush Prolife according to Church teachings?[/b]
And for the record I'm not pressing this to be a butthat. Ironmonk has called me a liar for stating Church teachings on this particular subject. And as he's clearly stated, it is proper to correct error.
[/quote]


Methinks that since IronMonk has posted since this was written and he CHOOSES not to prove himeslf wrong, I will take a stab at them.

1. No
B. Yes
iii. No

GET OUT!!!! hot stuff you are not a liar.....you are correct.

[AngelofJesus]

Doesn't the Catholic church allow abortion when the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life?
St. Goretti was declared a saint because she chose to have the baby instead of saving her own life, right?

[Jaime]

[quote name='AngelofJesus' post='984433' date='May 18 2006, 09:19 AM']


Doesn't the Catholic church allow abortion when the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life?
St. Goretti was declared a saint because she chose to have the baby instead of saving her own life, right?
[/quote]

No


Um I think she was killed during a rape attempt

/end hijack

[qfnol31]

It is actually Saint Gianna Beretta Molla that you speak of.

Her story is on Priestsforlife.org at [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/giannamolla.html"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/giannamolla.html[/url]

Abortion is never okay, but there is a process called salpingectomy (the other is a salpingostomy which is directly killing the baby and immoral) which removes the fallopian tube. It does not directly kill the baby and the mother and doctor would try and sayve the baby were it possible, making it an acceptable, though very sad, proceedure.

If I have the names backwards someone's free to correct me.

[Jaime]

Incidentally Zach, you can feel free to answer the questions as well. You've said you think he's prolife

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='984452' date='May 18 2006, 10:56 AM']
Incidentally Zach, you can feel free to answer the questions as well. You've said you think he's prolife
[/quote]

Yeah, I would love to see what your answers are too, Zach......

In case you want to question just what the questions are (because I know how you post.....) here they are, no ambiguity:

[b]Does the Catholic definition of prolife support abortion in any form Ironmonk?


Does President Bush support abortion in any form?


Is Bush Prolife according to Church teachings?[/b]


Inquiring minds want to know.