Posted on 09/19/2016 11:35:47 AM PDT by ebb tide
I was really dumbfounded when Jeff Mirus said:
"In this case, the continuing sins involved in the irregular union on the part of the repentant spouse would seem to be venial—on the grounds that full consent of the will to the moral evil of continued sexual relations is lacking. The sins would be rendered venial by either a very real confusion about the best course or the compulsion inherent in the particular situation, or both "
So if your husband wants you to break one of the ten commandments, you're only committing venial sin because you're breaking them to keep the relationship.
What if your husband wants you to help him embezzle funds from his employer?
What if he wants to abort your child?
Rorate covers the theological misunderstandings much better than I can.
"In this scenario the possibility of confusion about the best course is excluded ex hypothesi, since it is stipulated that the person in question recognises the sinfulness of the relationship. The question is thus whether full consent of the will to sexual relations is lacking. But this full consent is clearly stated to occur. The consent is the whole point of the scenario. The person in question is described as continuing sexual relations in order to prevent their partner in adultery from leaving. Acting for that reason means knowing what you are doing – continuing sexual relations – and choosing to do it in order to obtain a goal – the continued presence of the partner in adultery. Knowing what you are doing and choosing to do it in order to obtain a desired goal is what fully voluntary action consists in. There is no exculpating infringement of the will or lack of voluntary consent in the scenario. There is a fully voluntary choice to do a wrong action, made because doing the action has a result that the agent wants to obtain. Making choices of this kind is what sin is."
This was the very first lesson on sin God provided to us.
Here's what happened when Adam tried to persuade God his wife pressured him into it:
The man said, “It’s the fault of the woman you put here with me. She gave me some fruit from the tree. And I ate it.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What have you done?”
The woman said, “The serpent tricked me. That’s why I ate the fruit.”
17 The Lord God said to Adam, “You listened to your wife’s suggestion. You ate fruit from the tree I warned you about. I said, ‘You must not eat its fruit.’
“So I am putting a curse on the ground because of what you did. All the days of your life you will have to work hard. It will be painful for you to get food from the ground. 18 You will eat plants from the field, even though the ground produces thorns and prickly weeds. 19 You will have to work hard and sweat a lot to produce the food you eat. You were made out of the ground. You will return to it when you die. You are dust, and you will return to dust.
Adam was tossed out of Paradise with Eve.
That's all we ever need to know about whether caving to pressure from a loved one closes the door on our salvation.
I am a sinner. Sometimes I sin. I hope I can stop. But I believe in and accept Christ’s sacrifice and ask that He make me strong. His sacrifice takes away my sin, unworthy though I am.
How many times must you insist on violating Catholic Caucus threads?
Ask Tim Kiane. He says he knows...
Just because one CAN does not mean one SHOULD!
I don’t know. Why do you think this is a Catholic Caucus subject? Maybe, since Catholics seem to be really, really confused about the Gospel these days, they need some outside help.
Now I should I go to this young ladies blog and create another thread that is open to all? Yeah, we know how that works out.
Has quoting scripture become a violation? Like saying "Trump" on a college campus?
It’s a Catholic Caucus thread because it’s about the Catholic Church, exclusively. No other religions are mentioned.
You obsession with attacking the Catholic religion, while disobeying forum rules, is pathetic.
Here’s what you said just this past Saturday, “Just mark the thread Catholic Caucus and we will leave you alone.”
Practice what you preach for a change.
Oh, I don’t know. This is too much fun, but now everyone will think I said something really bad, instead of quoting Saint Paul’s advice to Saint Timothy on how to run his Church.
JimRed, you made the mistake of saying you sang in the Choir, so you can’t be Catholic.
BTW, any strange dreams last night?
Perhaps if you'd labeled this as a Catholic Caucus thread....
I've included one as an example for you on how this should read to be a Caucus thread.
Day 36 - 54 Day Novena for Our Nation (Catholic Caucus)
3. “Closed” threads on the Religion Forum include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. The header of the thread should make it obvious that the thread is closed, i.e. like a church meeting behind closed doors. Such assemblies will not be disturbed. Any challenges or ridicule will be removed. Any thread can be designated a caucus - e.g. labeled as a “[Catholic Caucus]” or “[LDS Caucus]” - provided that neither the article nor any of the posts challenge or ridicule any other confession. These are “safe harbors” for those who are easily offended or are ill equipped to defend their own confession.
It is disingenuous to complain that your confession is being maligned when you are NOT using the caucus designation to protect the thread from challenges!
4. All other threads on the Religion Forum are “Open” which means they are like a town square. Challenges and ridicule will occur. Expect them to be contentious, rough or even insulting. Your confession will be maligned on open threads. Your beloved religious figures will be ridiculed. Don’t complain because the author or a religious figure is called a liar, demon, heretic or whatever on an open thread. It is to be expected in the town square. Remember too that the Religion Forum is densely populated with highly educated theologians. If you are ill-equipped to defend your confession, you’ll get beat up on “Open” thread. When in doubt, ping one of your best defenders and withdraw to a “Closed” thread.
Nobody is being disingenuous. I posted this thread with the [Catholic Caucus] designation. For some reason the entire thread was pulled. I complained and it has since been reposted without the Caucus designation.
Nobody is being disingenuous. I posted this thread with the [Catholic Caucus] designation. For some reason the entire thread was pulled. I complained and it has since been reposted without the Caucus designation.
Hey, I'm just posting the rules of the RM.
Wow....some catholics are so thin skinned.
I know the rules. Apparently some of y’all don’t know them.
It’s a Catholic Caucus thread because it’s about the Catholic Church, exclusively. No other religions are mentioned.
Could'a fooled us.
Hey, I told the Religion Monitor that I was going to stay away from adulterous threads. Please don’t drag me back into this one. ;-)
Yes. Fools are easily fooled.
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.