Ask A Catholic II

[civ_king]

Jehoshua somewhat contradicted you...
Regardless, my question was, the guy wearing the condom knows it's a sin, does it anyways.

We eventually answered the VERY simple question... the RCC teaches that this individual is going to suffer damnation as a result.

Where did he contradict me and how was it a contradiction

 

[Takhisis]

Jehoshua somewhat contradicted you...
Regardless, my question was, the guy wearing the condom knows it's a sin, does it anyways.

We eventually answered the VERY simple question... the RCC teaches that this individual is going to suffer damnation as a result.

If he truly repents and confesses afterwards, he shouldn't.

It's no less ridiculous than teaching that homosexuals, adulterers or suchlike will burn in hell.

Erm… homosexuals, maaaybe. if a man -or woman- is homosexual and never has sex at all then nothing happens.

Adultery ≠ homosexuality, Arakhor, you should know that. Anyway, the same applies: repentance works. Always.

P.S. God is Allforgiving, so even after deth He may forgive you (judgement, etc. etc.)

 

[Arakhor]

I was actually responding to Kochman, Takhisis, and I was listing various sins and in no way conflating them. I haven't begun to redefine the English language to suit myself just yet.

 

[Takhisis]

So you will in the future?

BURN HIM!

 

[Ajidica]

Which is worse: Gluttony, theft, or homosexuality?

 

[Takhisis]

All are sins. Depends how far you take it.

 

[Jehoshua]

On homosexuality.

The inclination to homosexual acts is not in itself a sin, it is merely a disordered desire. However homosexual acts are gravely sinful in that they deny the procreative purpose of the sexual act, and also because they deny the unitative purpose which can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman in the state of matrimony.

 

[Ajidica]

So engaging in homosexual acts in worse then violating one of the ten commandments or one of the seven deadly sins?

and also because they deny the unitative purpose which can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman in the state of matrimony.

Is there anything more to matrimony then serving as a legal group for producing kids?

 

[Nikoagonistes]

So engaging in homosexual acts in worse then violating one of the ten commandments or one of the seven deadly sins?

It's not worse - it is breaking the commandment against adultery.

Is there anything more to matrimony then serving as a legal group for producing kids?

Yes, it is.

 

[Ajidica]

It's not worse - it is breaking the commandment against adultery.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (I can check my Catechism book if you want) Adultery is:

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another.

The definition went on, but a search turned up no mention of homosexuality or gay.

Yes, it is.

Is so engaging in carnal intercourse to produce kids is not needed for it to be a marriage?
Is it still marriage if a fertile person has carnal intercourse with an infertile person?

 

[de Maistre]

The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[Ajidica]

Still not seeing how it is adultery if no married persons are involved. While it may be breaking other church rules involving premarital sex, I fail to see how it is adultery.

 

[Arakhor]

It's even less relevant if said gay couple form a legal union.

 

[Leoreth]

On homosexuality.

The inclination to homosexual acts is not in itself a sin, it is merely a disordered desire. However homosexual acts are gravely sinful in that they deny the procreative purpose of the sexual act, and also because they deny the unitative purpose which can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman in the state of matrimony.

Doesn't abstinence do the same?

 

[civ_king]

It's even less relevant if said gay couple form a legal union.

I'd like to point out that the Church only recognizes ecclesiastical marriage

Doesn't abstinence do the same?

Actions can be sin, inactions can't be sin (AFAIK)

 

[El_Machinae]

Actions can be sin, inactions can't be sin (AFAIK)

Jesus sums up "the whole of the law" as two positive commandments. "Love God" and "Do unto others". Since inaction can cause one to NOT "do unto others", isn't it very easy to see that inaction can be a sin?

One of Christianity's great contributions was the proactive commandment to do good. Many other systems are merely negative "don't do X, Y, or Z". They're useful, but not as progressive.

 

[civ_king]

Jesus sums up "the whole of the law" as two positive commandments. "Love God" and "Do unto others". Since inaction can cause one to NOT "do unto others", isn't it very easy to see that inaction can be a sin?

One of Christianity's great contributions was the proactive commandment to do good. Many other systems are merely negative "don't do X, Y, or Z". They're useful, but not as progressive.

Well, I mean mortal sin, and yes we are commanded to go forth and do good things

 

[timtofly]

Ok, Folks, after reading the epistles of Ignatius, I have re-converted myself back to being a Catholic. Until the thread changes to RCC or Orthodox, I seem to have the ability to answer here. I also can answer in the Protestant thread, due to the fact I protest against the RCC and Orthodox versions. If you do not want my post, then please also kick Ignatius out of your answerings. IMO he is not a reliable source to defend either the RCC or Orthodox views on certain things that I doth protest about.



The sin of omission is "knowing" you are supposed to do something and not doing it, then it is a sin.

The sin of commision is doing something that you are not supposed to do.

We are told to love our enemy. If we do not show love, we are omitting love. If we revenge ourself, we are committing a wrong.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Still not seeing how it is adultery if no married persons are involved. While it may be breaking other church rules involving premarital sex, I fail to see how it is adultery.

Yeah, isn't fornication the correct word?

I'd like to point out that the Church only recognizes ecclesiastical marriage

What if the marriage is in a Church, but not a Catholic one? Say a Protestant is married in a Protestant Church and then converts to Catholicism. Do they have to remarry?

Actions can be sin, inactions can't be sin (AFAIK)

There are certainly sinful thoughts.

P.S. God is Allforgiving, so even after deth He may forgive you (judgement, etc. etc.)

So, how does that work? Is it possible that an unrepentent person will be forgiven, that they can repent after death, or are you suggesting something else altogether?

And another question:

Augustine taught exclusivism (Basically, if you weren't Catholic Christian, no matter the reason, you were condemned, even if you had never heard.)

The modern Catholic Church teaches that non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians can be saved, just that the Catholic Church is the best means for Salvation and basically the only one that's 100% guaranteed to get you there (Correct me if this is off.)

As far as I know, the Catholic beliefs on Salvation is a dogma (Again, correct me if I am wrong) and so Catholics must believe it.

So; how did Augustine get it wrong?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I mean mortal sin, and yes we are commanded to go forth and do good things

Has this whole "mortal vs. venial" sin thing been discussed already? I might have missed it. I was raised Protestant, so the idea of two 'types' of sins isn't intuitive to me. Secularly, I can separate sins into "victimless, harm yourself, and harm others", and so I can grade the 'severity' of sins along that axis.

If it hasn't been discussed, how couldn't failing to proactively do "the whole of the law" NOT be a mortal sin? It seems pretty clear, in light of Jesus's other teachings!