Posted on 02/10/2018 8:57:53 AM PST by Salvation
A curious sin
Question: I recently was reading an older Catholic book, and it spoke of curiosity as a sin. I thought curiosity was usually a good thing because it is the basis of learning. Is curiosity always a sin? — Bernard Johnson, Brooklyn, New York
Answer: In modern times the English word “curiosity” is often used simply to refer to our desire to know. Of itself, the desire to know can be a good and necessary thing. It is the basis of all exploration, science and much knowledge. However, in previous generations the word “curiosity” almost always referred to the excessive or inappropriate desire to know. As such, curiosity was a sin against temperance and referred to our pining after knowledge that was sinful, trivial or none of our business. There is also the tendency of some to be forever pursuing knowledge of the bizarre, doubtful and lurid. Curiosity can also refer to pursuing valid knowledge, but more for pride than for the glory of God.
Given today’s tendency to use the word in a wider sense, many moral theologians speak of “sinful curiosity” to distinguish it from the simple desire to know something.
Frankly, sinful curiosity is a serious problem today in an information-saturated time. Things about which we should be discreet often are bandied about immodestly on talk shows, and what used to be called gossip is often treated as serious news. Too often in our culture the mere demand to know becomes the right to know. It is difficult to say exactly where the “people’s right to know” ends and intrusive and sinful curiosity begins. And while it is true that discretion is a virtue, secrecy also can be a sin and unjustly cover up what should be known. However, all of us should consider that we do not have an absolute right to know everything just because we want to. We should learn to temper our desire to know and recognize sinful curiosity in our own life.
Monsignor Pope Ping from the OSV column.
IMHO, a perfect example of sinful curiosity would be the medical community wondering how they could change males into females and females into males. In an ethical world, the notion would never have been entertained.
Isn’t this basically 1 John 4:1 (discernment)?
Good example.
You should have answered the question.
This person really goes in five different directions by the end.
Is this what you were referring to?
1 John 4
1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3
and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.
I guess in the Garden of Eden, Eve got a little too curious. Now look at the mess we are in.
The simple answer is that curiosity (classically termed “wonder,” of all things) is the beginning of Philosophy.
The Catholic church did not like (and still doesn’t to a great degree —the concept of an encyclical is anathema to this Protestant’s free studies and debates) its congregants thinking outside the Catholic box. They wanted the congregants to be told by the hierarchy what is Truth (Good, Evil, Justice, etc.). They did not want them thinking about these issues independently and perhaps reaching a conclusion that differed with the Catholic church.
It’s not surprising that “curiosity” would have been classified as a sin given this hierarchical and fiat-based history.
You are very wrong if you think the Catholic church is afraid of hard questions about its theology. Have you ever read the Summa? It's chock full of hard questions about theology, and some pretty good answers to those questions, too.
Adam was thinking with his little head
To seek knowledge of witchcraft, for instance.
Excellent!
Gossip is a completely separate sin. To try to term gossip “curiosity” is trying to hide the root nature of the prohibition.
By classifying gossip as curiosity and prohibiting against gossip, Catholics accept the hidden prohibition against curiosity.
My post answers why the Catholic church would have used such incongruous terminology and what their motive may have been.
And why it still persists today. The latest Pope’s encyclical reads likes it was quoted from Al Gore’s fraud against science regarding AGW. I want Catholics to be curious about the validity of not only Al Gore’s fraudulent science (and thereby to discover a position closer to Truth...that ‘climate change’ is constant, has been constant, and has mainly natural causes) as well as to be curious about whether or not the Pope is infallible and whether or not encyclicals may have an ulterior motive.
Probably the most useful treatise of the various kinds of "curiosity" is found in the book of Ecclesiastes, called a "wisdom" tract. The pastor of one assembly that I attended preached expositionally on this book verse by verse, one verse per every midweek service, for several years.
In it we found that the so-called "wise" Solomon experienced and described his involvement in many activities that a Christian ought not to even contemplate pursuing.
In the end, David's son lost most of the kingdom because of his foolish occupations aimed at gaining more knowledge, though he deliberately ignored God's clear verbal warnings to him.
That book is worth a serious, minute examination for limning areas that a godly person ought to be wary of and shun. One ought to also examine the Biblical account of Solomon's reign as found in the history of the Kings of Israel and Judah, to see how he worked his way to an ignominious end.
And that is one of the reasons why we have a completed communication from God, the Bible, that ought to be one's guide for living in this age.
May come as a shock to Catholics but God determines what is a sin not tradition, orthodoxy, the Pope or the pontification of any created being.
You might check the Holy Scripture for the definition of sin rather than dusty books written by men like ourselves, for the heart is exceeding wicked.
"We should learn to temper our desire to know and recognize sinful curiosity in our own life."
The Bible (Eccl. 7:16-18 AV, bolded for emphasis):
"Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish:
why shouldest thou die before thy time?
It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand:
for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all."
Don't try to be too righteous, too wise, wicked, or foolish, beyond the limits God has establish beyond which He is not tolerant of human error, beyond which one has gone over the brink into a fiery end.
Yes, although I was just referring to the first to demonstrate discernment.
Sin is an offence against God.... Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to the contempt of God."
The above is taken from the Catechism. I don't see how it's different than what all Christians understand sin as.
Just as you said, people are sinful. This includes the Pope, parishoners, priests, etc.. Catholics recognize that people don't always say or do the right things, but believe that despite that, Christ is always there to help as long as we ask and are repentant. It is a battle, however, until the end of the present age.
Is Christ’s promised assurance of certainty when His Church speaks Magisterially on faith or morals only not a good thing?
Otherwise we have hundreds of divergent opinions and teachings on faith and morals.x
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.