Ask A Catholic II

[JollyRoger]

I suppose that the Church is officially against pornography itself to begin with.

Yeah, but if they are going to do it, should the sin be compounded with condoms?

 

[Jehoshua]

You are missing my point. I know Catholics think that Vatican II is right. What I don't get is HOW Augustine made the mistake. I mean, he had access to the various statements of faith of Catholicism didn't he?

I again will remind people that Augustine isn't the magisterium...

Augustine however is actually correct in that one can only be saved through the Catholic faith. However this does not mean one outside can;t be saved, because if they are ignorant of the Church and unknowingly follow the moral truths of the faith and remain free of personal sin they can be saved through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As to people ignorant of the Church not being saved according to Augustine, I have already answered this saying that the chances of no personal sin are exceedingly low, and considering the era Augustine lived in, his view would not be unreasonable.

So as Civ-King said salvation always is through the Church intangibly because the agency of salvation is through its teachings and through its head Jesus Christ. But tangibly one ignorant who lives according to its precepts and would join and be baptised if he was aware of it can be saved. (his baptism being considered a baptism of desire being imparted to God's mercy)

Im not explaining it very well, but looking up the CCC should give you some idea (although it itself has a few anomalies).

 

[Jehoshua]

Yeah, but if they are going to do it, should the sin be compounded with condoms?

The Pope hypothesised (not dogmatically defined) in his book that a male prostitute with the intent to prevent the infection of AID's to his clients could use a condom, and that would be a first step in his moralisation as he would be having the latent beginnings of a moral sense. This is because prostitution is already evil and thus at least showing some concern for clients through double effect at least highlights the beginnings of a morality, even if the agency of that is still wrong ordinarily.

However in ordinary life condoms as all contraceptives are forbidden.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The popes did have chairs with holes in them that is true. But the item in the sense you were calling it never existed. The chairs with holes in them were former imperial chairs of the roman empire and were used when the popes claimed temporal power in italy.

-

Divorce is a sacrilege because it violates the sacrament of marriage. It also is damaging to society generally. Malta is a catholic country and thus the Church worked to prevent this social evil from entering into that country and a) perhaps leading people into sacilegious separation from matrimony b) prevent a social ill from entering maltese society.

I havent checked if the referendum permitted it (I hope it didn;t) but I know it was neck and neck last time I checked.

Just for curiosity, but the Bible says in Matthew that a man can divorce his wife if she is adulterous and vice versa. Now, this isn't COMMANDED, but it is allowed, so why won't the RCC allow it?

I again will remind people that Augustine isn't the magisterium...

I know, but seeing as he was a learned scholar, I would think he knew the Catholic dogmas (Assuming they existed at the time, but if they didn't, you could have just answered the question by saying so.)

Augustine however is actually correct in that one can only be saved through the Catholic faith. However this does not mean one outside can;t be saved, because if they are ignorant of the Church and unknowingly follow the moral truths of the faith and remain free of personal sin they can be saved through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As to people ignorant of the Church not being saved according to Augustine, I have already answered this saying that the chances of no personal sin are exceedingly low, and considering the era Augustine lived in, his view would not be unreasonable.

By "Personal Sin" do you mean mortal sin?

Also, what if someone commits a mortal sin, and is truly repentant of that sin and knows he did something gravely wrong, and asks God for forgiveness. HOWEVER, he does not go to a priest, the reason being he isn't Catholic and doesn't believe that he needs a priest. This man would have gone humbly before a priest if he had known of the necessity, but since he isn't Catholic, he doesn't know he needs one. Saved or damned?

Also, what about someone who repents to God but dies before he can get to a priest? What happens? Or someone who sins, and doesn't come to repentence before death because he dies during the act, however, the person was Catholic, is he saved or not?

So as Civ-King said salvation always is through the Church intangibly because the agency of salvation is through its teachings and through its head Jesus Christ. But tangibly one ignorant who lives according to its precepts and would join and be baptised if he was aware of it can be saved. (his baptism being considered a baptism of desire being imparted to God's mercy)

Im not explaining it very well, but looking up the CCC should give you some idea (although it itself has a few anomalies).

Actually, your answer does somewhat make sense. But what "Precepts" must this person live by? Does he merely need to follow what he knows, or are there certain things which MUST be followed regardless of knowledge?

 

[Takhisis]

Just for curiosity, but the Bible says in Matthew that a man can divorce his wife if she is adulterous and vice versa. Now, this isn't COMMANDED, but it is allowed, so why won't the RCC allow it?

Well, we can annul the marriage if there's proof enough.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, we can annul the marriage if there's proof enough.

According to what Civ_King told me in a PM, Catholics don't allow it ever. Maybe that's not accurate, but usually he knows his Catholicism.

 

[Perfection]

You have a soul, everyone does, and it's a part of the human person, but a non-corporeal part.

What does it do?

Knowing you, Perf, you'rve probably sold it off to some random stranger .

I got a Starburst!

 

[civ_king]

Well, we can annul the marriage if there's proof enough.

You appear to have misunderstood what an annulment is, see below

According to what Civ_King told me in a PM, Catholics don't allow it ever. Maybe that's not accurate, but usually he knows his Catholicism.

An annulment means the marriage was never valid in the first place, an action after the fact can't change whether it was entered validly

 

[GhostWriter16]

An annulment means the marriage was never valid in the first place, an action after the fact can't change whether it was entered validly

So Takhisis was wrong I presume.

Either way, is divorce a valid option for those who's spouses have committed adultery? If not, why does Jesus say it is in Matthew?

 

[Takhisis]

An annulment means the marriage was never valid in the first place, an action after the fact can't change whether it was entered validly

Meh, I misunderstood Dom's post, I thought he meant 'before' the marriage. happens when I read half a dozen threads at once…

So, yes, a marriage can only be annulled because of preexisting conditions, but then again, some things are only discovered after the marriage… as always, it's tricky.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, I mean say a Catholic man marries a Catholic woman, they consumate the marriage and whatever, three years later the woman is caught sleeping with another man. Is divorce allowed?

 

[Takhisis]

Divorce is not allowed, period.

 

[civ_king]

Yeah, I mean say a Catholic man marries a Catholic woman, they consumate the marriage and whatever, three years later the woman is caught sleeping with another man. Is divorce allowed?

No, but marriage counseling is recommended

 

[Perfection]

Why do you think it's appropriate to have a location of "up yours!", surely that violates some Catholic doctrine.

 

[Takhisis]

Perf, you're skirting the line between banter and trolling, but 'up yours' is what could be considered a pun or play on words. Up your… location, of course.

 

[Perfection]

Less silly question, who goes to hell?

 

[timtofly]

Perf, you're skirting the line between banter and trolling, but 'up yours' is what could be considered a pun or play on words. Up your… location, of course.

Would it be degraded, if a coma or space were inserted? Obviously a ? would give it away.

 

[El_Machinae]

Divorce is not allowed, period.

Buh? Aside from the fact that Matthew's gospel allows divorce, what about spousal abuse?
And, referring to the anti-divorce sentiment upthread, why should a Catholic be opposed to secular divorce legislation being passed. You know, so an abused wife can leave her husband ...

How common of a sentiment would this be? "The Maltese government should not allow divorce"?

 

[Jehoshua]

Just for curiosity, but the Bible says in Matthew that a man can divorce his wife if she is adulterous and vice versa. Now, this isn't COMMANDED, but it is allowed, so why won't the RCC allow it?

Does not Christ also say that divorce was only permitted under the mosaic law due to the heard-heartedness of the people?. The Church forbids divorce because it is a social ill and its outcomes are damaging to society and thus although it was permitted by the mosaic law it is condemned (as in all the ancient Churches) as this permittance does not negate its harmfullness and immorality. Furthermore in violating the sacrament of marriage it is considered sacrilegious and a sinful act.

I know, but seeing as he was a learned scholar, I would think he knew the Catholic dogmas (Assuming they existed at the time, but if they didn't, you could have just answered the question by saying so.)

Some sources existed such as Justin Martyr and the epistles of St Ignatios of Antioch and Pope St Clement but they were few at the time.

By "Personal Sin" do you mean mortal sin?

Also, what if someone commits a mortal sin, and is truly repentant of that sin and knows he did something gravely wrong, and asks God for forgiveness. HOWEVER, he does not go to a priest, the reason being he isn't Catholic and doesn't believe that he needs a priest. This man would have gone humbly before a priest if he had known of the necessity, but since he isn't Catholic, he doesn't know he needs one. Saved or damned?

Also, what about someone who repents to God but dies before he can get to a priest? What happens? Or someone who sins, and doesn't come to repentence before death because he dies during the act, however, the person was Catholic, is he saved or not?

Personal sin = sin actually commited by the individual. Basically any sin barring the original sin. As for a person who is ignorant of the Catholi faithc repenting with perfect contrition he being ignorant of the sacrament of penance would not be damned for not doign so, because he would naturally go to the sacrament of penance if he had knowledge. As for a catholic if he died in perfect contrition naturally that person knowing the neccesity for penance would have attended at the first possible oppurtunity and thus some accident barring him actually attending confession is irrelevant as he was already perfectly contrite (which for a catholic by neccesity implies he desired urgently yo goto confession at the first possible opportunity)

Actually, your answer does somewhat make sense. But what "Precepts" must this person live by? Does he merely need to follow what he knows, or are there certain things which MUST be followed regardless of knowledge?

The precepts I am referring to is the natural law which is manifestation in the world of God's eternal law. Violations of the natural law are gravely immoral and are everywhere to be condemned. Furthermore the natural law is insribed in the souls of every person and thus all have a responsibility to adhere to this inherent moral law.

 

[Jehoshua]

Buh? Aside from the fact that Matthew's gospel allows divorce, what about spousal abuse?
And, referring to the anti-divorce sentiment upthread, why should a Catholic be opposed to secular divorce legislation being passed. You know, so an abused wife can leave her husband ...

How common of a sentiment would this be? "The Maltese government should not allow divorce"?

Spousal abuse is of course gravely immoral, however I would think that the Church (I am not sure on any specific teaching or rule of jurisprudence in this area) that it would prefer alternative means to resolve the issue, such as marriage councelling.

As to pro-marriage (anti-divorce) sentiment, a catholic would be opposed to divorce legislation (especially in 95% catholic malta) because it is encouraging a moral and societal ill which harms the social structure of any particular society. Furthermore it would be considered uncharitable to sit idly by why the rest of society falls into a harmful or even sinful position or mentality (such as say abortion to highlight a well known example). Thus it is the responsibility of Catholics to work to ensure the good of society is maintained in light of the teachings of Christ.