-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Does this thread concern anyone else?
- Thread starter Dominus Fidelis
- Start date
- Status
Too late I already went there, didn't mean to invade anyone but I couldn't keep quiet. I'm sorry...
Upvote
0
Miss Shelby said:
Yes! Hence the question for discussion. I believe we've concluded that if one doesn't know something is wrong and does it, it is not a sin. I believe we agree, right?
Upvote
0
Aaron-Aggie said:Age of reason is 7
The age we normally recieve the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Yes. I was Confirmed at age 9! You don't see that much anymore.
Upvote
0
Carly said:
I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Souls before the coming of Jesus; "good" people who were not Baptized...where do they go when they die? Have they earned Heaven? Hell? I was taught about Limbo. Must be too fuzzy of a subject to really know...
Upvote
0
At the risk of continuing a futile endevour, I will answer you one more time. Just once, then I'm done.darby8 said:Yes! Hence the question for discussion. I believe we've concluded that if one doesn't know something is wrong and does it, it is not a sin. I believe we agree, right?
No we do not agree. I can understand why you would think that we are in agreement, and I don't mean to split hairs but here goes.
You are saying that if someone, for instance, kills a baby... but say, they are mentally incapacitated. What they have done is still wrong, still sinful. Can I say they have not commited a sin because they're crazy? NO. Can I say that God is going to send them straight to hell for it? NO. Only God can do that.
They may plead not guilty by reason of insanity and receive a lesser charge or be aquitted entirely by the legal system, but there is still that matter of facing God, who is merciful and just.
IOW, I cannot make the determination if the person will be punished for the sin, but I can say that it is a sin.
Michelle
Upvote
0
Christy, I knew that you had already posted there (I read your post on this thread), when I posted my recommendation that we not post there. I mean we as a mob of Catholics.
I applaud you for your conviction to post there, and I agree with your post.
Peace.
I applaud you for your conviction to post there, and I agree with your post.
Peace.
Upvote
0
Miss Shelby said:At the risk of continuing a futile endevour, I will answer you one more time. Just once, then I'm done.
No we do not agree. I can understand why you would think that we are in agreement, and I don't mean to split hairs but here goes.
You are saying that if someone, for instance, kills a baby... but say, they are mentally incapacitated. What they have done is still wrong, still sinful. Can I say they have not commited a sin because they're crazy? NO. Can I say that God is going to send them straight to hell for it? NO. Only God can do that.
They may plead not guilty by reason of insanity and receive a lesser charge or be aquitted entirely by the legal system, but there is still that matter of facing God, who is merciful and just.
IOW, I cannot make the determination if the person will be punished for the sin, but I can say that it is a sin.
Michelle
OK. Agree to disagree. My bad...
Upvote
0
No not your bad...just wanted to make myself clear.darby8 said:OK. Agree to disagree. My bad...
Michelle
Upvote
0
There is a difference between 'objectively sinful' and 'subjectively sinful'. We can speak of something being objectively sinful without regard to whether it was subjectively sinful in a particular instance.
To be subjectively sinful, it requires full consent of the will, after the person has consciously realised that the act is morally wrong (and gravely wrong for mortal sins). If these three criteria are not present, there is no subjective sin - but such an act would be sinful if the three criteria are present.
To be subjectively sinful, it requires full consent of the will, after the person has consciously realised that the act is morally wrong (and gravely wrong for mortal sins). If these three criteria are not present, there is no subjective sin - but such an act would be sinful if the three criteria are present.
Upvote
0
Homosexuality and Hate Speech
Defending Moral Principles Is Getting Riskier
LONDON, FEB. 14, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Christians defending moral teachings on homosexuality are increasingly running foul of laws that ban any negative statements about the subject. A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation, the Telegraph newspaper reported Nov. 10.
Bishop Peter Forster of Chester told a local paper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject -- that's in the area of psychiatric health."
Police investigated the statements and a spokesman said a copy of the article would be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Subsequently, the police dropped the case, the Independent newspaper reported Nov. 11.
The matter raised fears about restrictions on defending Christian morality, the British-based Christian Institute explained in its January newsletter. It added that the bishop's position was backed up by a lot of academic research. Even a longtime supporter of homosexual rights, Columbia University professor Robert Spitzer, recently published a study finding that homosexuals could become predominantly heterosexual through psychotherapy, the newsletter observed.
Debate also flared last year in the United Kingdom over whether churches should be allowed to refuse employment to homosexuals. The government finally agreed to add a clause to anti-discrimination legislation giving religious organizations the right to exclude a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, the Sunday Times reported June 1. Still, the Christian Institute warned in its January newsletter that employers must be prepared to argue their case in court.
In Ireland, meanwhile, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned the Catholic Church that distributing the Vatican guidelines on same-sex unions could bring prosecution. The document published last July by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith falls foul of the Incitement to Hatred Act, according to sources quoted in the Irish Times on Aug. 2.
"The document itself may not violate the act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the act," said Aisling Reidy, director of the civil-liberties council. Those convicted under the act could face six-month jail terms. Of the Vatican document Reidy said: "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation."
The limits of diversity
On the other side of the Atlantic, ......David Bernstein, professor at George Mason University School of Law, addressed the topic of how antidiscrimination laws are creating problems for free speech in his recent book, "You Can't Say That!" Fear of litigation, he observed, "is having a profound chilling effect on the exercise of civil liberties in workplaces, universities, membership organizations, and churches."
Bernstein related how one U.S. Catholic university was beaten down by legal actions into giving full recognition to student homosexual groups. And citing several recent legal cases in Canada, he commented: "Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex."
On the question of how homosexuals are to be treated, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is careful to point out: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (No. 2358).
Nevertheless, the Catechism is no less clear when it deals with the morality of homosexual acts: "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (No. 2357). Defending this teaching, in a charitable way, is no easy task. And in the current legal climate, it could get a lot harder.
ZE04021402
Defending Moral Principles Is Getting Riskier
LONDON, FEB. 14, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Christians defending moral teachings on homosexuality are increasingly running foul of laws that ban any negative statements about the subject. A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation, the Telegraph newspaper reported Nov. 10.
Bishop Peter Forster of Chester told a local paper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject -- that's in the area of psychiatric health."
Police investigated the statements and a spokesman said a copy of the article would be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Subsequently, the police dropped the case, the Independent newspaper reported Nov. 11.
The matter raised fears about restrictions on defending Christian morality, the British-based Christian Institute explained in its January newsletter. It added that the bishop's position was backed up by a lot of academic research. Even a longtime supporter of homosexual rights, Columbia University professor Robert Spitzer, recently published a study finding that homosexuals could become predominantly heterosexual through psychotherapy, the newsletter observed.
Debate also flared last year in the United Kingdom over whether churches should be allowed to refuse employment to homosexuals. The government finally agreed to add a clause to anti-discrimination legislation giving religious organizations the right to exclude a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, the Sunday Times reported June 1. Still, the Christian Institute warned in its January newsletter that employers must be prepared to argue their case in court.
In Ireland, meanwhile, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned the Catholic Church that distributing the Vatican guidelines on same-sex unions could bring prosecution. The document published last July by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith falls foul of the Incitement to Hatred Act, according to sources quoted in the Irish Times on Aug. 2.
"The document itself may not violate the act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the act," said Aisling Reidy, director of the civil-liberties council. Those convicted under the act could face six-month jail terms. Of the Vatican document Reidy said: "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation."
The limits of diversity
On the other side of the Atlantic, ......David Bernstein, professor at George Mason University School of Law, addressed the topic of how antidiscrimination laws are creating problems for free speech in his recent book, "You Can't Say That!" Fear of litigation, he observed, "is having a profound chilling effect on the exercise of civil liberties in workplaces, universities, membership organizations, and churches."
Bernstein related how one U.S. Catholic university was beaten down by legal actions into giving full recognition to student homosexual groups. And citing several recent legal cases in Canada, he commented: "Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex."
On the question of how homosexuals are to be treated, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is careful to point out: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (No. 2358).
Nevertheless, the Catechism is no less clear when it deals with the morality of homosexual acts: "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (No. 2357). Defending this teaching, in a charitable way, is no easy task. And in the current legal climate, it could get a lot harder.
ZE04021402
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Michelina said:
Interesting! So, if I'm understanding this distinction correctly, "objectively sinful" is the standard that might affect your time in purgatory, but "subjectively sinful" is what you need to repent... So, if you're simply too clueless to understand that you're wrong, you can't be subjectively sinful, even if you're objectively sinful.
This sounds like it might be a resolution to the fairly tricky question of how people can possibly repent all of their sins, when most people never even understand many of their sins.
Upvote
0
LongingForLight
Well-Known Member
I have a question about the Church's view of homosexuality. Is it considered a sin for two people of the same sex to live together in a romantic - but not sexual - relationship? If I understand the Church's position, it sounds like this would be permitted - the issue seems to be with the homosexual act, so if this is removed from the picture, could a homosexual relationship be considered chaste?
Upvote
0
I do know that the Holy See has permitted a couple to live together if they, say, were married in a civil union and are now seeking to marry in the Church, as long as they live as brother and sister. It would be up to their priest if they could still receive the Sacraments, to his discretion. I would assume this would be with the provision that marriage within the Church is the goal, though, and in the case of two people of the same sex this wouldn't be possible.LongingForLight said:
So my answer is I don't know, but I would tend to doubt it, but perhaps someone with a little more expertise on the matter can answer this for you.
Michelle
Upvote
0
LongingForLight said:
If living together puts them in proximate danger of sin (a likelihood of falling into unchaste behavior), it would in itself be sinful.
If they are known to be homosexual and people would reasonably assume that they have a sexual relationship, they would be giving grave scandal, which is sinful.
Upvote
0
seebs said:
No, seebs, 'objectively sinful' would not affect time in purgatory, since it does not involve culpability. You're right about 'subjectively sinful'.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
