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 ...
Wow.
Inference upon inference, and you somehow claim fact from that.
Nice try.
Whoa...abortion? Timm22 when did you stop beating your wife?
Highball,
What are you confused by?
When you participate in contraception, you’re stopping God from creating new life. Right?
When you engage in abortion you’re killing a newly formed life, right?
So what’s your point? Please add more than just cleverness.
Yours Truly,
The Woim
Oh no, Timm22 is a wife beater also?
When will that guy change his ways!
Yours truly,
The Woim
When you participate in contraception, you’re stopping God from creating new life. Right?
Wrong.
If God really wants that life created, I can't stop Him. Neither can a Trojan.
Don’t the studies show NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than a Trojan?
Don’t the studies show NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than a Trojan?
I'm not familiar with any such study, but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Substitute a combination of estrogen and progestin, taken orally once a day, if you like.
So if we’re going to do what the Bible tells us, I should go have sex with my brother in law, if hubby can’t get me pregnant? And everyone is ok with that? It doesn’t come under the subheading of adultery or lust or anything like that? Can I choose which brother in law I want to do the deed with? Or is it firstborn? Or could I pick of of my sister in laws’ husbands, since technically they’re brother in laws to me too? And can we do it lots of times, and in more than the missionary position, just in case it doesn’t take and I don’t get pregnant? If none of the brothers are willing, can I pick a cousin of his? Or a coworker?
What about people who are infertile, through no fault of their own? Didn’t God make them that way? What’s up with that?
Just askin’. This might open up a whole realm of possibilities, lol.
Maybe, just maybe it’s because I don’t want to spend 9 months out of every year pregnant? Because constant childbearing is really hard on a woman? Because husband and I are the only ones supporting our kids and it would be pretty hard to feed 15+ mouths daily? Or buy clothes or shoes, even at Goodwill? Because I couldn’t afford a bigger house and 7 kids would not fit into one bedroom here? Because I think that having more children than you can support is not responsible parenting? Because I don’t want to have to limit sexual contact with my husband to whenever?
I think I’d rather be a sex toy than a brood mare.
“But I am Baptist what do I know?”
Oh well. That explains it then ;)
Love your name. Only thing I drink. (When I’m *drinking* drinking, that is!)
I guess that means we can’t wear glasses. Or get braces. Or have a cancerous tumor removed. Or remove appendix or tonsils. Or a myriad of things.
Man that glasses thing is really going to suck. I’d suggest everyone get off the road when they see me coming!
‘Cause they’re ain’t gonna be much lovin’ if I’ve got 15 kids to take care of! And if everytime I wean one o’ the young’uns, I got to worry about the next one’s arrival, I can darn sure betcha they’re ain’t gonna be a whole lotta anything goin’ on.
Wifely duty, forsooth.
Good, but how come “nominating pro-contraception (or worse) cardinals” is not added ?
Here is my understanding :shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach AdonaiGENESIS 38:Verse 6-10. When Ger was grown up, according to ancient custom (cf.
Genesis 21:21; 34:4) his father gave him a wife, named Tamar, probably a
Canaanite, of unknown parentage. But Ger was soon put to death by
Jehovah on account of his wickedness. Judah then wished Onan, as the
brother-in-law, to marry the childless widow of his deceased brother, and
raise up seed, i.e., a family, for him. But as he knew that the first-born son
would not be the founder of his own family, but would perpetuate the
family of the deceased and receive his inheritance, he prevented conception
when consummating the marriage by spilling the semen.
“destroyed to the ground (i.e., let it fall upon the ground), so as not to give
seed to his brother” ( ˆtæn; for ˆtæn; only here and Numbers 20:21). This act
not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a
despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a
sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was
therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death. The custom of levirate
marriage, which is first mentioned here, and is found in different forms
among Indians, Persians, and other nations of Asia and Africa, was not
founded upon a divine command, but upon an ancient tradition, originating
probably in Chaldea. It was not abolished, however, by the Mosaic law
(Deuteronomy 25:5ff.), but only so far restricted as not to allow it to
interfere with the sanctity of marriage; and with this limitation it was
enjoined as a duty of affection to build up the brother’s house, and to
preserve his family and name.
Verse 11. The sudden death of his two sons so soon after their marriage
with Tamar made Judah hesitate to give her the third as a husband also,
thinking, very likely, according to a superstition which we find in Tobit
3:7ff., that either she herself, or marriage with her, had been the cause of
her husbands’ deaths. He therefore sent her away to her father’s house,
with the promise that he would give her his youngest son as soon as he had
grown up; though he never intended it seriously, “for he thought lest
he also might die like his brethren.”
Quoting what you posted:
"This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object..."
This agrees with what I wrote. The "object" of marriage is to create a family--- by procreation, as well as by the steadfast love of the spouses, or at least to have an honest go at it. Onan did not have an honest go: it wasn't honest sex. It was an incomplete and deliberately contraceptive act, and intentionally frustrated whatever natural fertility he and Tamar might have achieved in the act.
Note that Judah and Sela were also kin to Tamar, and equally intended to avoid having a child with her. Probably the same "want of affection" and "despicable covetousness" was in their hearts, too. But they weren't punished as Onan was, because they didn't do what he did: perform an intentionally contracepted sex act. See what I'm saying?
BTW: does your Bible include the book of Tobit, which was referred to in your post?
according to a superstition which we find in Tobit 3:7ff.
So the distinction boils down to acts *causing* infertility vs. acts *taking advantage* of naturally-occurring infertility?
So presumably, a couple that has sex after menopause (or maybe a medically-necessary ovariectomy) is not doing anything wrong. Even though they are enjoying the pleasure of sex, without the possibility of procreation, they are morally blameless since they did not cause the underlying infertility.
Am I right so far?
Hey, I'm trying FRiend. That's why I'm asking all these questions.
:)
Quite a while ago, actually. I kind of lost interest in her after I found my new loves- Baal worship and drug use.
Seriously though, I'm neither married nor looking right now, so my motivation here is just simple curiosity.
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.