Ask A Catholic II

[GhostWriter16]

1: One can believe in a literal seven day creation and not be considered heretical as nothing on the matter has been declared dogma, however the general view is that it is metaphor. So although you can hold your personal conviction on the matter your holding to a view that is in the minority and is also blatantly contrary to reason and scientific evidence.

Do you know of any Catholics who believe it?

2: scripture is inspired but it does not neccesarily have to be innerant, they are two very different things. Inspired means that it reveals something about God and the human relationship with him, innerant means it is totally correct on everything. Therefore an innerant bible would contain no scientific errors, whereas an inspired one could but would contain no theological error and would reveal truth.

OK that makes sense.

3:I honestly don't know if a protestant marraige is considered valid, however I think it would be considering the fact that a marriage does not need to be repeated and only merely confirmed for a protestant couple who converted to the Church.

This makes sense.

4:I hold no opinion on the matter of post death pre judgement repentance as since I happen to be alive it concerns me not. It is much more important to focus on living in fidelity to all Christ commanded and repenting my sins now than musing over what happens after one dies, which naturally the living cannot know.

Yeah, it is obviously just speculation.

5:As to infants we cannot know their fate, since no man can pronounce the fate of another. We can merely entrust the unbaptised infant to God's mercy.

Well, 2 Samuel 12:23 seems to give insight

6:Exceedingly few are saved. Many of the doctors of the Church wrote that out of a city of thousands only a few hundred would be saves. The fewness of those who are saved is emphasised everywhere amongst the church fathers. So I think it is a safe bet that the vast majority of people who are catholic will not achieve salvation, and I would think that the prospect for those who lack the guidance of the Church is dim.

If to be damned, you would have to knowingly choose great evil and never repent of it, why are so many damned? It stands to reason that few people would know that they could be damned for a sin and still do it. If the person did not realize at the time what they were doing is gravely immoral, it doesn't damn them correct?

Also, even for someone in the Church that seems to be following it, should there be fear of damnation, or can you be confident (Note, this is different than absolute certainty) of Heaven?

The path to hell is wide and flat, the path to heaven is winding, steep. The gates to hell are wide, the gates to heaven narrow.

Yes this is true.

7: To be baptised a christian is to be ontologically changed as the original sin of the person is washed away. Furthermore through the sacraments of the Church man is ontologically changed through the grace of God on the path towards sanctification his soul being changed and purified by Christ. The spirit within him strengthens him against the world and whispers to him calling him forward on the path, however that does not negate the free will of man for man can reject the Lord. By God's grace one is made a new man in Christ, however this does not mean one is automatically saved, for even the foulest of sinners who is baptised has the intrinsic mark of a christian on their soul, they even in their state of depravity are distinguished from the unbaptised, for the mark of Christ is in them, yet should they choose to reject Christ they still face the just end for their rejection.

Furthermore to choose God over sin is a choice. God does not reject anyone who chooses to follow him. As I have said before God damns no one to hell, rather the sinner throws himself into hell, for having made the choice to remain in unrepentant sin God respects that choice and as the pain of God's infinite love to the sinner is exeedingly great, the sinner throws himself away from God into hell to avoid that burning fire, for it is less harsh in hell for the one marred by mortal sin than in the presence of the perfect God, and nothing imperfect can exist in God's presence.

Thus it is not so frightening that one would be damned for falling into the depravity of sin. Rather whats frightening is that so many make the choice to do so.

So, to commit mortal sin, do you have to know that what you are doing is gravely wrong? Say, a Protestant does not believe that using contraception with his wife is gravely wrong, yet he knows the Catholic Church teaches it is wrong, he just doesn't believe it, so he does it. Since he knew the Catholic Church teaches it is mortal, is he condemned? Or is he not condemned since he did not actually know he did grave wrong?

 

[Jehoshua]

Do you know of any Catholics who believe it?

Not personally

Well, 2 Samuel 12:23 seems to give insight

This passage is merely highlighting that the child of David has died and thus it is no longer neccesary for David to fast as his fate has been pronounced as he cannot undo what has been done. He states he will go where the child would go, but since he cannot know God's judgement of the childs soul since he is human to what does he refer?

I would (my opinion) thus think that this passage refers to the fact that both go to their particular judgements, ie both will meet their maker. (must remember also that this is pre-Christ)

If to be damned, you would have to knowingly choose great evil and never repent of it, why are so many damned? It stands to reason that few people would know that they could be damned for a sin and still do it. If the person did not realize at the time what they were doing is gravely immoral, it doesn't damn them correct?

The natural law is ingrained in the human person, knowledge is innate even for those outside the Church of what is right and what is wrong. Also you gravely underestimate how easy it is to commit mortal sin. It is exceedingly simple, you don't need to murder someone to do so and generally except in excceedingly rare circumstances knowledge remains even if it is surpressed by the mind involved.

Also, even for someone in the Church that seems to be following it, should there be fear of damnation, or can you be confident (Note, this is different than absolute certainty) of Heaven?

One shouldn't fear damnation rather they should fear falling into sin and turning away from the Lord, for sin is what leads one down the road to damnation. As to heaven no one can be confident of heaven, no man of his own merits deserves heaven and it is by God's grace alone that the soul achieves salvation.

So, to commit mortal sin, do you have to know that what you are doing is gravely wrong? Say, a Protestant does not believe that using contraception with his wife is gravely wrong, yet he knows the Catholic Church teaches it is wrong, he just doesn't believe it, so he does it. Since he knew the Catholic Church teaches it is mortal, is he condemned? Or is he not condemned since he did not actually know he did grave wrong?

I cannot say whether anyone is condemned as it is not my ability to judge. However I would hazard a guess that since the innate morality of the natural law is intrinsic to him that he would to some degree at least be aware of the unnaturalness of contraception, but would surpress that and proceed regardless thus remaining in knowledge and commiting a grave sin which is likely to be mortal. Whether he intellectually knows what the Church teaches is irrelevant as the knowledge of what is good and what is evil is innate to the human being.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This passage is merely highlighting that the child of David has died and thus it is no longer neccesary for David to fast as his fate has been pronounced as he cannot undo what has been done. He states he will go where the child would go, but since he cannot know God's judgement of the childs soul since he is human to what does he refer?

I would (my opinion) thus think that this passage refers to the fact that both go to their particular judgements, ie both will meet their maker. (must remember also that this is pre-Christ)

Actually, wouldn't this verse contradict the Catholic teaching that we should pray for the dead? David seemed to think it wasn't necessary.

The natural law is ingrained in the human person, knowledge is innate even for those outside the Church of what is right and what is wrong. Also you gravely underestimate how easy it is to commit mortal sin. It is exceedingly simple, you don't need to murder someone to do so and generally except in excceedingly rare circumstances knowledge remains even if it is surpressed by the mind involved.

I know you don't have to kill anyone, but don't you have to be aware, at least in some sense, that what you are doing is wrong? And yeah, everyone has moral conscience, but conscience alone isn't perfect, and if you know what you are doing is gravely wrong, I don't see nearly all of humanity still doing it and never repenting.

One shouldn't fear damnation rather they should fear falling into sin and turning away from the Lord, for sin is what leads one down the road to damnation. As to heaven no one can be confident of heaven, no man of his own merits deserves heaven and it is by God's grace alone that the soul achieves salvation.

Why would God surrender his children to damnation because they sin when he already had his Son die for them and he adopted them into his family?

I cannot say whether anyone is condemned as it is not my ability to judge. However I would hazard a guess that since the innate morality of the natural law is intrinsic to him that he would to some degree at least be aware of the unnaturalness of contraception, but would surpress that and proceed regardless thus remaining in knowledge and commiting a grave sin which is likely to be mortal. Whether he intellectually knows what the Church teaches is irrelevant as the knowledge of what is good and what is evil is innate to the human being.

Well, I know in my case I have no ethical issues with contraception in a marriage relationship, and it seems like the immorality of it is exclusively a Catholic/Orthodox thing and not common amongst world religions. If it is so uncommon in religions, doesn't it stand to reason that most people are NOT naturally aware of its immorality? (Note, that doesn't by default make it OK, but it does stand to reason most people who aren't Catholic but break it are not really committing mortal sin due to their ignorance.)

 

[Jehoshua]

Actually, wouldn't this verse contradict the Catholic teaching that we should pray for the dead? David seemed to think it wasn't necessary.

Not neccesarily as this is pre-Christ and thus there were only two options to go to, either abraham's bosom or hell (abrahams bosom being the waiting area so to speak for the righteous dead before Christ opened the gates to heaven). Since it is currently after Christ's sacrifice and ressurection we have three options, heaven, hell or purgatory (purgatory not really being a place, rather than a process of purification for eventual entrance to heaven for those who still have some trace of sin but are not so corrupted as to be damned.). When we pray for the departed we pray for those undergoing purgatory that the process of purification may be hastened. For those in heaven and those in hell it is unnecesary to pray.

generally praying for the departed is thus under the assumption of purgatory as no one cacn know the fate of another.

I know you don't have to kill anyone, but don't you have to be aware, at least in some sense, that what you are doing is wrong? And yeah, everyone has moral conscience, but conscience alone isn't perfect, and if you know what you are doing is gravely wrong, I don't see nearly all of humanity still doing it and never repenting.

Humanity is intrinsically inclined to sin, we are naturally and innately inclined to evil I hardly find it surprising that the majority would continue going on being gravely immoral. Repentance doesn;t come naturally because once in sin it is exceedingly difficult to return to righteousness. However we have the spark of light within us which if nurtured by God's grace and the active choice of the individual can lead one out of sin and into the light of God.

Why would God surrender his children to damnation because they sin when he already had his Son die for them and he adopted them into his family?

He doesn't. Christs sacrifice opened the door to heaven by atoning for our sin. Man, the prodigal son simply needs to choose to go through the door. God respects the choice of his children and should man decide to abstain from entering then God respects that choice for to do otherwise would be enslaving us to his will, thus negating any genuine relationship with God.

Well, I know in my case I have no ethical issues with contraception in a marriage relationship, and it seems like the immorality of it is exclusively a Catholic/Orthodox thing and not common amongst world religions. If it is so uncommon in religions, doesn't it stand to reason that most people are NOT naturally aware of its immorality? (Note, that doesn't by default make it OK, but it does stand to reason most people who aren't Catholic but break it are not really committing mortal sin due to their ignorance.)

Orthodox Judaism and Islam also frown upon contraception. Either way though considering man is naturally inclined to evil, it is perfectly reasonable to say they would be aware but simply surpress the immorality of it under their own inclinations. As to ignorance I cannot judge whether any individual person is commiting moral sin in any particular case, so I cannot judge that non-catholics who use contraception are commiting mortal sin. All I can say is that contraception because it denies the natural faculty of the sexual act is a grave matter and thus can in many instances be mortal.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not neccesarily as this is pre-Christ and thus there were only two options to go to, either abraham's bosom or hell (abrahams bosom being the waiting area so to speak for the righteous dead before Christ opened the gates to heaven). Since it is currently after Christ's sacrifice and ressurection we have three options, heaven, hell or purgatory (purgatory not really being a place, rather than a process of purification for eventual entrance to heaven for those who still have some trace of sin but are not so corrupted as to be damned.). When we pray for the departed we pray for those undergoing purgatory that the process of purification may be hastened. For those in heaven and those in hell it is unnecesary to pray.

generally praying for the departed is thus under the assumption of purgatory as no one cacn know the fate of another.

So in OT times, anyone with any trace of sin was damned?

Also, can you give an example of the type of person that would be destined for purgatory and then Heaven? And what would a person that skips purgatory look like when he dies?

Humanity is intrinsically inclined to sin, we are naturally and innately inclined to evil I hardly find it surprising that the majority would continue going on being gravely immoral. Repentance doesn;t come naturally because once in sin it is exceedingly difficult to return to righteousness. However we have the spark of light within us which if nurtured by God's grace and the active choice of the individual can lead one out of sin and into the light of God.

OK that makes more sense.

How sparsely populated do you think Heaven will be? Its certainly narrow, but how narrow do you think, roughly?

Also, do you think a faithful Catholic will most likely end up in Heaven?

He doesn't. Christs sacrifice opened the door to heaven by atoning for our sin. Man, the prodigal son simply needs to choose to go through the door. God respects the choice of his children and should man decide to abstain from entering then God respects that choice for to do otherwise would be enslaving us to his will, thus negating any genuine relationship with God.

Why does it logically follow that someone who dies while having an unrepentant mortal sin would also choose to go into Hell?

Orthodox Judaism and Islam also frown upon contraception. Either way though considering man is naturally inclined to evil, it is perfectly reasonable to say they would be aware but simply surpress the immorality of it under their own inclinations. As to ignorance I cannot judge whether any individual person is commiting moral sin in any particular case, so I cannot judge that non-catholics who use contraception are commiting mortal sin. All I can say is that contraception because it denies the natural faculty of the sexual act is a grave matter and thus can in many instances be mortal.

OK that makes sense.

For me I've never considered it being immoral except for the words of the Catholic doctrine.

 

[Jehoshua]

So in OT times, anyone with any trace of sin was damned?

Also, can you give an example of the type of person that would be destined for purgatory and then Heaven? And what would a person that skips purgatory look like when he dies?

Well its the same now, anyone in a state of mortal sin at their particular judgement damns themselves.

A person who would go to purgatory would be someone with venial sin. And how would I know what he looks like when he dies, he could be burning from a car accident or peacefully lying umnarred physically on his deathbed. What do you mean from that question?

OK that makes more sense.

How sparsely populated do you think Heaven will be? Its certainly narrow, but how narrow do you think, roughly?

Also, do you think a faithful Catholic will most likely end up in Heaven?

I don't know since I don't know who is saved. Why should I estimate the population of heaven when I am ignorant. I would say however that being a faithful catholic improves your prospects of entering heaven although thats hardly a guarantee.

Why does it logically follow that someone who dies while having an unrepentant mortal sin would also choose to go into Hell?

Because nothing perfect can exist in the presence of God, and so to remain in his presence for the unrepentant mortal sinner would be more painful than to go into hell. The soul thus throws itself into hell to avoid the burning love of God and his divine perfection. Hell is in fact God's mercy for the unrepentant, not God's punishment since hell is distance from God and all that comes from God.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well its the same now, anyone in a state of mortal sin at their particular judgement damns themselves.

A person who would go to purgatory would be someone with venial sin. And how would I know what he looks like when he dies, he could be burning from a car accident or peacefully lying umnarred physically on his deathbed. What do you mean from that question?

I didn't mean physical looks. I meant, what would the worse sins in his life look like? I meant, could you give me an example of a person's life (Real or fictional) that would most likely go to purgatory when he dies. Remember, I'm not Catholic, so I don't fully understand which sins are mortal and which ones aren't.

I don't know since I don't know who is saved. Why should I estimate the population of heaven when I am ignorant. I would say however that being a faithful catholic improves your prospects of entering heaven although thats hardly a guarantee.

Yeah, I figured you couldn't know, but I meant very generally, like, do you think it will be hundreds of thousands? Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? I was looking for a very general answer, and even then, I know it would be just a guess.

Because nothing perfect can exist in the presence of God, and so to remain in his presence for the unrepentant mortal sinner would be more painful than to go into hell. The soul thus throws itself into hell to avoid the burning love of God and his divine perfection. Hell is in fact God's mercy for the unrepentant, not God's punishment since hell is distance from God and all that comes from God.

So I assume you don't think Hell is actual, literal fire?

 

[Jehoshua]

I didn't mean physical looks. I meant, what would the worse sins in his life look like? I meant, could you give me an example of a person's life (Real or fictional) that would most likely go to purgatory when he dies. Remember, I'm not Catholic, so I don't fully understand which sins are mortal and which ones aren't.

Perhaps a bad tempered person who insulted people with fair regularity but not to any serious degree and who was otherwise a moral and upright man.

So I assume you don't think Hell is actual, literal fire?

Well hell isn't a place in the material universe so naturally it is not a literal tangible fire. It still is a fire just not physically, it is spiritual torment. I won;t explain further since I have not actually been to hell so I cannot know what it is like.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Perhaps a bad tempered person who insulted people with fair regularity but not to any serious degree and who was otherwise a moral and upright man.

OK that makes sense. But why is insulting people not a sin, but say masturbation is? (Note, I agree both of them are sins.) Why is one more serious than the other, and what makes this so?

Well hell isn't a place in the material universe so naturally it is not a literal tangible fire. It still is a fire just not physically, it is spiritual torment. I won;t explain further since I have not actually been to hell so I cannot know what it is like.

Yeah, I understand what you mean, I was just making sure.

Another question: Someone tried to tell me today IRL that Catholic services focus almost entirely on communion, and that the purpose of this is to recreate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Does this have any accuracy at all?

 

[Jehoshua]

Firstly insulting is a sin, it simply is venial because although it is harmful it does not create something unnatural or evil. Masturbation denies the natural use of the sexual act to the purpose of self-gratification while also denying the unitative nature of human sexuality. Thus it is unnatural and in violation of the natural law, thus it is a grave matter

-

The catholic mass does not seek to re-create the sacrifice of Christ, rather it re-presents, ie makes present once again again the one, eternal (and thus timeless) sacrifice of Christ on the cross through the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The eucharist is the source and summit of christian worship precisely because through holy communion Christ enters tangibly into our souls and imparts the purifying grace of God to the communicant who recieves with the proper disposition. This is the focus of the entire mass, receiving Christ.

However there is also an important preaching component, the liturgy of the word which contains two readings one from the epistles/old testament and one from the Gospels and these are cycled over time so that one eventually goes through almost the entire bible (skipping perhaps lists of ancestors or levitical rules) before beginning the cycle over again. These are of course followed by a homily (sermon). After this the liturgy of the eucharist itself continues before culminating in communion followed by some concluding rites and prayers. The teaching component is thus an important compenent secondary to the Eucharist.

 

[Ajidica]

Back when the Pope may or may not have said condoms are acceptable, he also said that Universal Health Care is an inalienable right. Does this mean that Catholics who are opposed to UHC are bad Catholics?

 

[Jehoshua]

Back when the Pope may or may not have said condoms are acceptable, he also said that Universal Health Care is an inalienable right. Does this mean that Catholics who are opposed to UHC are bad Catholics?

Firstly the pope did not say condoms are acceptable, merely that in the case of a male prostitute it is a lesser evil and could be a first step of the moralisation of that person as he would at least be showing some concern to his client.

As to universal health care that depends on the proposition. If that health care system proposed is immoral because it denies the dignity of the human person in any particular instance than opposition is justified. For example in the US the the bishops support universal healthcare, yet they opposed Obama's proposition vehemently because it funded abortion which is an exceedingly evil and unnatural act because the defense of the dignity of human is more important than supporting the otherwise sound aspects of the health care bill.

As to if your opposed to UHC, you can be opposed and still be considered a good catholic as it is not a matter of dogma and merely the popes opinion on the matter. The pope is not infallible in everything he says, only when pronouncing officially ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

That said charitable support to the poor in is considered an essential component to public policy in catholic social teaching and so naturally UHC flows on from this. I do not see a reason except for the presence of grave immorality in any given UHC proposal that could easily be justified under catholic teaching in a nation that can afford a UHC system.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Firstly the pope did not say condoms are acceptable, merely that in the case of a male prostitute it is a lesser evil and could be a first step of the moralisation of that person as he would at least be showing some concern to his client.

As to universal health care that depends on the proposition. If that health care system proposed is immoral because it denies the dignity of the human person in any particular instance than opposition is justified. For example in the US the the bishops support universal healthcare, yet they opposed Obama's proposition vehemently because it funded abortion which is an exceedingly evil and unnatural act because the defense of the dignity of human is more important than supporting the otherwise sound aspects of the health care bill.

As to if your opposed to UHC, you can be opposed and still be considered a good catholic as it is not a matter of dogma and merely the popes opinion on the matter. The pope is not infallible in everything he says, only when pronouncing officially ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

That said charitable support to the poor in is considered an essential component to public policy in catholic social teaching and so naturally UHC flows on from this. I do not see a reason except for the presence of grave immorality in any given UHC proposal that could easily be justified under catholic teaching in a nation that can afford a UHC system.

Well, one could argue that charity is the place of individuals and not the government, and that is precisely how I would argue.

I'm not sure if this is a valid opinion for a Catholic, but that's one argument that works.

And another question related to contraception:

Say there are two partners, one Catholic and one not (Say the Catholic was converted after the marriage and the other partner didn't convert.) The other partner insists on using contraceptives. What should the Catholic Christian do?

 

[Jehoshua]

Charity is the place of individual and government. After all the government is composed of people. The whole society should be based around virtue, you cannot have individuals full of charity and then the government devoid, it makes for a bad society. Charity and virtue must infuse the whole for even should a section be devoid it will inevitably corrupt the whole. That said the principle of subsidiarity requires that the government abstain from intervening when something can be dealt with lower down on the rungs of the societal structure. The Church does not support a centralised nanny state system.

In the case of a mixed religious marriage the catholic christian should refuse as it is gravely immoral and try and work out a differing arrangement such as NFP if they genuinely can't afford children. However if they can afford children and the spouse remains obstinate despite all attempts at mediation and dialogue in refusing to engage in sexual intercourse without artificial contraception then under canon law that is a sound base for an annulment as it belies deceptive intent in the marriage vows and shows that the spouse had no intention of fulfilling the requirments of the marital state.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Charity is the place of individual and government. After all the government is composed of people. The whole society should be based around virtue, you cannot have individuals full of charity and then the government devoid, it makes for a bad society.

You don't have to accept my suggested viewpoint, it was simply a theory of how a person could theoretically oppose UHC and still support charity. This isn't a political debate. But; why would Catholics be required to hold any particular political viewpoint anyway, if in fact they are required to do so?

In the case of a mixed religious marriage the catholic christian should refuse as it is gravely immoral and try and work out a differing arrangement such as NFP if they genuinely can't afford children. However if they can afford children and the spouse remains obstinate despite all attempts at mediation and dialogue in refusing to engage in sexual intercourse without artificial contraception then under canon law that is a sound base for an annulment as it belies deceptive intent in the marriage vows and shows that the spouse had no intention of fulfilling the requirments of the marital state.

What is NFP?

Also, according to Scripture, whether the spouse leaves or not should be decided by the unbelieving spouse. Why does the Catholic Church teach that the Catholic should be able to decide it?

 

[Jehoshua]

You don't have to accept my suggested viewpoint, it was simply a theory of how a person could theoretically oppose UHC and still support charity. This isn't a political debate. But; why would Catholics be required to hold any particular political viewpoint anyway, if in fact they are required to do so?

ok I see what you meant, Catholics are not required to hold any particular viewpoint but they are expected to hold to the doctrine of the Church and thus any party that denies fundamental morality, one should abstain from voting for.

What is NFP?

natural family planning

Also, according to Scripture, whether the spouse leaves or not should be decided by the unbelieving spouse. Why does the Catholic Church teach that the Catholic should be able to decide it?

The spouse does decide by refusing to compromise. The Catholic partner simply gives the unbelieving spouse a choice, adhere to the teachings of Christ or undergo the annulment process. The spouses obstinancy is the choice to reject the marriage.

 

[civ_king]

Well, one could argue that charity is the place of individuals and not the government, and that is precisely how I would argue.

I'm not sure if this is a valid opinion for a Catholic, but that's one argument that works.

And another question related to contraception:

Say there are two partners, one Catholic and one not (Say the Catholic was converted after the marriage and the other partner didn't convert.) The other partner insists on using contraceptives. What should the Catholic Christian do?

Social Reign of Christ the King?

 

[Arakhor]

What is Natural Family Planning when it's at home? Please don't say it's the utterly useless practice of coitus interruptus.

 

[_random_]

What is Natural Family Planning when it's at home? Please don't say it's the utterly useless practice of coitus interruptus.

IIRC, it's based on abstaining from sex during periods of fertility. Coitus interruptus is pretty strictly forbidden in the Catholic Church.

 

[Arakhor]

The spouse does decide by refusing to compromise. The Catholic partner simply gives the unbelieving spouse a choice, adhere to the teachings of Christ or undergo the annulment process. The spouses obstinancy is the choice to reject the marriage.

So, in other words, not doing things the Catholic way, even if you're not a Catholic, is refusing to compromise? Surely, that's a failure to compromise on both sides, at the very least.