Posted on 03/10/2008 10:21:49 AM PDT by Froufrou
The list came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.
The Catholic Church divides sins into venial, or less serious, sins and mortal sins, which threaten the soul with eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence.
It holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes,” including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell.”
Although there is no definitive list of mortal sins, many believers accept the broad seven deadly sins or capital vices laid down in the 6th century by Pope Gregory the Great and popularized in the Middle Ages by Dante in "The Inferno": lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy and pride.
Christians are exhorted instead to adhere to the seven holy virtues: chastity, abstinence, temperance, diligence, patience, kindness and humility.
Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences, said after a week-long Lenten seminar for priests that surveys showed 60 percent of Catholics in Italy no longer went to confession.
He said that priests must take account of “new sins which have appeared on the horizon of humanity as a corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization.” Whereas sin in the past was thought of as being an individual matter, it now has “social resonance.”
“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In context of 1 John 5, it would seem the only mortal sin is disbelief.
Oh my goodness, I'm sorry to hear that.
I apologize...I thought you were arguing something different. What happened to Mrs_Victor is another thing entirely. When the operation is medically necessary, there's no sin in it whatsoever, not even a tiny bit, and you two have every moral right to continue to rejoice in the gift God gave you. The Church would back you up 100% on that.
The sin of contraception only pertains to those people who voluntarily sterilize themselves for medically unnecessary reasons just because they don't want more children. You don't fall into that category whatsoever.
My prayers go out to both of you.
Well done, Jaded. Thank you!
Right. As I said, I can understand being opposed to certain uses or applications of genetic engineering. For example, the use of the technology which involved aborting surplus fetuses would clearly be immoral.
But as I understand things, Catholic teaching goes beyond that point. Catholics condemnsANY genetic engineering, even if it does not result in or even indirectly influence abortions.
It's kind of like the distinction between killing and murder. As far as I know, the Church does not oppose "killing" because there are rare circumstances where it is morally acceptable, or even necessary, to take another's life. Similarly, even if many uses of genetic engineering involve immoral aspects, I don't see why that makes ANY use of genetic engineering immoral.
...How many embryoes will be needlessly manipulated in fear of a disease that can be easily misdiagnosed?
That may be a good practical argument against genetic engineering, but I don't think it is a moral argument. We can debate usefulness or cost-efficiency of certain vaccinations, for example, but that doesn't tell us if vaccinations are right or wrong in a moral sense.
At the end of the day, genetic manipulation is a ranking of human worth from worthless (ill) to priceless (healthy).
Sorry, I have a hard time understanding this. If we were talking about killing people I might understand, but what I have in mind is fixing them. Your reasoning could be applied to almost any medical intervention.
Suppose doctors developed a simple test to detect which infants are at risk of later developing heart disease, and had a simple injection to give these infants to prevent those diseases from ever developing. I presume it wouldn't be immoral to use the test or injection on the infants, right? And the treatment would not call into question the human worth of people who suffer from heart disease, right?
If so, what difference would it make if the test were given just under 9 months earlier, and instead of an injection it was a rearranging of DNA to prevent the risk of heart disease?
that’s a mortal sin too. ;)
"continues to preoccupy the Vatican--------------and pedophilia,which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".
So it seems that it is and has been considered a mortal sin;the article was addressing inclusions and/or additions to the existing list.
Since you submitted the original article,maybe you could clarify that fact to others who also overlooked it. I know it is not necessary but it would be a very nice and honorable gesture. BTW,the above statement can be found in the seventh paragraph from the end of the article.
Sara, thank you, but I must hasten to point out that articles from Fox MUST be excerpted. Also, there was another article posted after mine that does a better job of detailing the ‘new sins.’
Rgds, Frou
"Molestering" children has always been "on the list".
Your point on intent is well taken. But I'm still not quite sure why NFP gets a free pass, so to speak. I hope I'm not pushing your patience past the breaking point, but I wonder if you might clarify it for me.
Maybe an example would illustrate my confusion. Suppose a couple has some valid reason to avoid conception for a few months. Obviously, they could simply choose not to have sex for the entire time and avoid any moral problems. But the couple doesn't like the idea of having to go without sex for so long.
So the couple considers two other options that will let them have sex without having to worry about conceiving a child. One is to monitor the wife's cycle and plan their encounters for her infertile periods, when conception is very unlikely to happen. The other is to use some form of contraception (just for a few months), which also makes it unlikely that conception will result from any of their encounters. The couple acknowledges that a child may still be conceived under either option, and are ready and willing to accept any children conceived during the use of NFP or contraception.
It seems that under both options, the parents are trying to enjoy the fun of sex while actively reducing the chances of conception for a period of time. With NFP the couple is not actively *blocking* conception. But even though the means differ, the *intent* is the same. Under both scenarios, the couple wants to have their cake and eat it too.
So why is the NFP option ok? (Again, assuming that it is just used for a few months and there's a valid reason to avoid pregancy.)
Not at all. Materialism takes two forms. There is dehumanizing left-wing materialism on the one hand, which minimizes the individual in favor of the collective. On the other is the form of materialism that is dehumanizing through putting greed ahead of all else. Capitalists can sin just as easily as socialists. To recognize the latter as a grevious sin has nothing to do with a left wing agenda.
"Sex is one of the ways in which a husband and wife express their covenant of love. One of the most important ways, in fact."
Right!!! So let me ask this. How does birth control further that end? How does birth control express that love?
It doesn't hinder that expression, I can tell you that.
Since you asked, the argument can be made that birth control might further that end in the same way as a black lace négligée might.
You make some excellent points. At first blush I can’t really see any flaws in your argument. Let me cogitate on it and get back to you tomorrow.
For what it’s worth, I was away from the Church a long time. And its position on sex was completely baffling to me then and (to some extent) can be perplexing even now. But the more I study it, the more rational I find it, and I find that it is always me who is looking at things the wrong way.
So I can completely relate to where you are on this, and I think you have exactly the right attitude. Skeptical, but curious and intrigued all the same. :)
Well, not hindering isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. Is it your opinion that birth control is an expression of love? If so, how so?
And go ahead and make me the negligee argument because I don’t see that either. Make it PG for the kids at home. ;)
I figure God made doctors that made contraception. Given the verses sighted so far, I don’t see where it is prohibited, but to each his own.
In the Songs of Solomon, sex was good thing for a husband and wife to enjoy. I like that.
After our last kids, we don’t want anymore. I’ve suffered enough miscarriages (3), then went on 10 weeks of bedrest with our natural twins, and then our twins almost died. One of our twins has brain damage.
I don’t want to be pregnant ever again, and I still want to be close to my husband.
It must be pretty obscure, so I’m not to worried about it.
Everyone has their own interpretation of the Bible, and we just have to be at peace with God ourselves.
Well, not hindering isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. Is it your opinion that birth control is an expression of love? If so, how so?
My opinion is that it doesn't have to be, because I don't care at all if couples choose to use it.
The burden falls on those who would claim that it is somehow harmful to a marriage.
So, sex with your spouse for pleasure is like killing them?
To each his own, I guess, but that is pure insanity!
You know, I’m a Catholic, and back when I was in college a priest described a situation very similar to yours in a couple he was counseling, but it was even worse: the doctors felt that if the woman, who had 3 children already, became pregnant again, the likelihood that she would carry the child to term was nearly nil, and the likelihood that she would not survive the pregancy was very high. I don’t remember exactly what illness she had that caused this.
But the couple came to the priest and asked him if it was still a mortal sin for them to use contraception for the rest of their reproductive years. The priest thought about it, prayed about it, and told them that his conscience didn’t allow him to agree with the Church’s teaching — that he felt the wrong would be in denying them the opportunity to express their love through sex. I think the priest has always felt a little guilty about telling them that (and I’m sure many of my co-religionists will say “he should”) but I think he was right.
Lawyers have a good aphorism for this kind of situation, “Hard cases make bad law,” as they always point out the exception to an otherwise good rule.
here’s a theoretical, but truly accurate scenario
two young boys grow up together, juan and jose
before their teens they grow up working with their fathers in the farm fields owned by others
both boys vowed a better life for their children when they grow up
both boys and their families were regular and faithful members of the local parish church
neither boy went beyond grade school, educated not much more than to read and write
both boys married by the time they were 21
both boys had two children by the time they were 23
they worked together and shared what they earned, over many years, to buy two very small farms
when juan’s wife got pregnant with their third child, juan went to his priest
he wanted forgiveness for both him and his wife practicing any number of birth control methods, as feeding and schooling his first two kids, now made more difficult by the third one would become much harder if they had any more kids
the priest told juan that condoms, the pill, a diaphragm, the morning after pill or similar means as those were immoral - that only the rythym method - followed carefully up to then by juan and his wife - unsuccessfully - could be used
upon return home juan told his wife what the priest said, but told her as well that he bought condoms, would always use them from then on and the two of them should also look at other medical means, besides abortion, to quit having children
when juan told jose, jose disagreed and said he would rather have ten kids than ‘sin’ with birth control
when juan’s oldest boy finished middle school, they made sure their youngest, a girl, went to grade school so that juan’s mom could take in a little work, to help pay for their eldest sons high school
meanwhile, jose’s wife was pregnant with their 4th child
when juan’s oldest boy finished high school, juan’s mom had converted her little bit of work into a small business and her and juan sent their first born to college
meanwhile, jose’s wife was pregnant with their 5th child and later their sixth child
starting from the same position, over the years, jose’s three additional children were a taxing dilema for jose
when juan was buying a new hog, jose was selling his only hog to keep food on the table for everyone
when juan’s middle son was working after school to help keep the older son in college, jose’s middle son had quit school to work full time to help pay the family debts
meanwhile, after a few years of confessional admissions, without shame, that he and his wife would not follow the church’s teachings on birth control, followed by sunday sermons on just that topic, juan had left the church
now jose and his family were in dire straits, about to lose their tiny farm and their children’s health problem’s mounting under nutritional stress
feeling the need of her faith and prayers as her oldest was nearing graduation, juan’s wife returned on her own to church one sunday
after the regular service ended, the priest made an announcement that the parish was making a special appeal for a special offering for jose and his family
at the end of the announcement, and looking directly at juan’s wife, the priest lectured how jose’s plight was a manifestation of the greedy economic system around them and worsened by those who took the fruits of their own success and left the church
when juan’s wife got home and told her story, juan said: ‘those bastards’
that night, he and his wife visited jose and offered their help
later that night, back home, they vowed together they would never go to or give anything to the church again
now, who will god look most in disfavor on
juan, who used birth control
jose, who took food out of the mouth’s of his existing children by having children he could ill afford
or the priest that told jose he was a better man than juan and then blamed juan for the misfortunes of jose - misfortunes that resulted in part from following, on pain of damnation, the priest’s advice
in all of latin america, the catholic church’s new proclamation that ‘causing poverty’ is a sin is a classic and hypocritical example of the pot calling the kettle black
as it continues to pronounce that the ‘poor’ of socialist
dominated latin america are poor because of the mean ole capitalists
yea, right /sarc
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.