seven deadly sins

[Socrates]

As they have been classically defined, the virtues could never be considered vices or vice-versa (no pun intended) by any sane human being.
These terms have specific definitions, and are not just empty words.

Humility - Recognizing one's place before God and recognizing Him as the source of all good
Pride - Putting exagerated self-love before love of God and neighbor

Liberality - Giving freely to others
Avarice - Wanting to accumulate excessive material possessions for one's self at the expense of others

Brotherly love - Loving one's neighbor as one's self
Envy - Having ill will because of other's good fortune

Meekness - Controlling one's anger
Wrath - Giving in to one's temper and violent impulses

Chastity - Exercising proper control of one's sexual appetites
Lust - Uncontrolled sexual appetite

Temperance - Exercising moderation in food and drink
Gluttony - Eating or drinking to excess

Diligence - Working hard at doing one's duties
Sloth - Laziness, not doing one's share of work

Can anyone seriously say that we would be better off if everyone strove to practice the vices, rather than the virtues.???

That is moral relativism to the point of insanity!

Edited November 22, 2005 by Socrates

[scardella]

Is liberality == largesse ?

[Socrates]

I think the subtitle "A Bunch of Hooey" very accurately describes Dairy's assertion in this thread.

[Cam42]

Still waiting on diary's definitons.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Take for instance the idea, it's not anger, it's "righteous indignation". If one were to say that's what the "anger" in the vice list is suppose to mean, then as I said in the first post, by definition it's bad. If by definition it's bad, then it cannot be good. My point is that anger in a general sense, without that necessity of bad, can be good. Jesus had anger in a general sense.

All of them, in a general sense, can be good or bad. For definitions, I refer you to www.dictionary.com If there's more than one definition, pick the one that makes my argument make sense. : There'll be one. I'll give you the opposite situation for what each is usually expected to have.
humility/pride
Pride in one's work is not bad we all agree? I would assert that it's good. Humility to the point of no pride then, I would argue is bad. Now, one might argue that the pride one has always will have humility in there somewhere, sure.

liberality/avarice
Liberally accepting new understandings of things is good; for the sake of something you'd accept, development of doctrine and science. People didn't always bow to the Eucharist, but when they realized what It was, put two and two together, they did. To not do this would be bad. Avarice is defined as immodest desire for wealth, but modest simply means not extreme and wealth is generally goods. God provides grace, and to go to the extreme to get it is what saints do.

brotherly love/envy
I'm a hippie when it comes to love. I stand corrected here with my argument with brotherly love. I think God loves sinners in hell and Satan. If you don't think He does, then to you I stand uncorrected... There's nothing wrong with envying or some of what others have, for instance saintly habits. Envy means resentment, and since resentment is a describing word without something to qualify, I say you resent your bad habits. Maybe I should use a legal dictionary?

I could go on, but I think you see where I'm getting at.
meekness/wrath
chastity/lust
temperance/gluttony
diligence/sloth

After all this, I retract my argument, sort of. Ironically not because of what you all argued. Cam was on the right track with the definition thing. I think we need Al here; he's a good debater. He'd point out the intent issue. Why I change is the idea that the vices when listed were meant in the bad sense, so they are bad. The virtues in the good.
Also, they are what normally tend to bring people down or up. Righteous indignation, while a good form of general anger (or I could word that better I suppose) and should be sought when necessary, isn't a primary virtue. No one ever said the list was complete. It's a good list. What might be beneficial is listing the good form of each in a general sense next to its opposite. eg Love should have righteous indignation noted beside it.
I said I retract sort of because I did say that if you think the bad are by definition bad etc, then they're bad etc. And I shouldn't make my arguemet when the intent issue comes up, because there's no arguing intent. I don't want to be a crooked lawyer here.
[i]So, it's a bunch of hooey if you don't look at the intent of the list...[/i]

So, I still insist virtues can be vices and vice versa (no pun intended) if you "twist" the intent to a general sense without intent.

This helps remember as I initially said that the opposites in a general sense are good. Jesus was angry in a general sense, that's that. We need to use the word anger when speaking in common language because there's not much mention of more developed words for the good form. Think about the fact that there are not many times words are used for the good times the "vices" are practiced. "Righteous indignation" type of definitions exist, but they're not common usage. The main point I'm driving home to is that because people think "anger" is bad, they begin to think "righteous indignation" is bad. I'm sure we all can agree this happens and is bad? So we should say anger can be good, in a general sense.

Edited November 22, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Rick777]

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='Rick777' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:14 AM']   
[right][snapback]797456[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Lol

Nice picture, Rick

Hmmmm ... this whole thread just sounds like a lack of basic catechetical knowledge of the deffinitions of the vices & virtues and a true understanding of them. For example: true humility is recognizing that everything you have comes from God --- I mean everything, because God gives us gifts, and we need to recognize them, be grateful, and know they come from him. Thus we can be glad when we do well and "proud" of our accomplishments, but at the same time recognize what we've been given is a gift and not take the final credit for ourselves. Afterall, we're instruments in his hands.

Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church for straightforward answers:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm[/url]

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='Rick777' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:14 AM']   
[right][snapback]797456[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You changed your picture ... the one of the Tridentine Mass was beautiful. So's this one. Who's the saint? I recognize him, but can't place a name.

[Paphnutius]

Here you go dairy

In medio virtus stat!

[Paphnutius]

I do think this is a problem with understanding. A vice is bad by definition, but it is bad because it is either an excess or a defect of something otherwise good. It is not that pride could be good, not in the sense that we mean pride. Here pride by its defninition is an excess of something. When a vice as you say "becomes good" it is no longer a vice, but the moderation that is virtue. The same applies for defects.

e.g. Hope is the virtue for it is inbetween the excess of presumption and defect of despair.

another: Temperance is the virtue for you eat enough for nourishment but avoid the excess of gluttony and the defect of over self-denial. *

*This gets tricky here because self-mortification is penitential, but even there one must stay within certain bounds.

[Cam42]

[quote]All of them, in a general sense, can be good or bad. For definitions, I refer you to www.dictionary.com If there's more than one definition, pick the one that makes my argument make sense.  There'll be one. I'll give you the opposite situation for what each is usually expected to have.[/quote]

Actually not. You really have not even started this discussion. In a general sense? What does that mean? If you think that by saying that anger (for instance, but apply any) in a general sense, without that necessity of bad, can be good. That is not correct.

[quote]Pride in one's work is not bad we all agree?[/quote]

No, we don't agree. Again, I believe your premise is wrong.

I asked you to look to Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)10:6-18 for one of the most complete views on pride. Pride is never acceptable. People apply the word pride incorrectly, often times. To be "proud" of one's work is not pride, but rather "acceptance of the good that they have done." Two totally different ideas. And an incorrect notion of pride.

[quote]After all this, I retract my argument, sort of. Ironically not because of what you all argued. Cam was on the right track with the definition thing.[/quote]

So we're not going to get definitions? I'm sad. If you are telling us to simply define it ourselves and then you will refute our definitons, I refuse to accept that. That is not being authentic in your motives, but rather combative and not open to a true sense of dialogue.

Again, this idea of "generalities" is flawed from the beginning. So, your whole post makes no sense, until YOU actually define your postion. Your position cannot be "I'm going to refute your position, without giving my own."

[quote]This helps remember as I initially said that the opposites in a general sense are good.[/quote]

Define your terms, then this thread can continue.

[tojo]

Perhaps Dairy, a sloppy, modern use of the English language could cause some vices, like "anger" or "pride" to be seen as not all bad, and some of the virtues, such as "humility," to seem like they could be bad, perhaps. However, the seven deadly sins, and indeed all vices and virtues are not defined in Catholic teaching according to modern, sloppy English, and the usuage of such modern, sloppy English, while it could cause confusion to some, does not and cannot reflect poorly on Church teaching. The teachings are fine, you have to make the effort to understand them as they were actually defined, and not in accordance with modern, sloppy English.

Edited November 22, 2005 by tomasio127

[beatty07]

I'm pretty much in agreement with dairy's most recent post, if I understand correctly. As cam has so strongly insisted, these terms have different usages in our society. The traditional theological definitions of the seven capital sins are not the definitions envisioned by most english-speakers when they use those words.

I had a long argument with a buddy once about lust. He kept insisting that you need lust AND love. He was defining lust as "physical attraction to another person." I just couldn't get him to understand that the "lust" of the seven deadlies is much more than that, and that it was exclusive of love. He refused to accept the context and presupposed definitions behind the list, and thus rendered it incoherent and ridiculous. You just can't do that!

I'm not saying we should abandon this great formulation of our tradition...I'm saying we should use it carefully. If we just rattle them off and don't communicate the crucial contexts and definitions, we're only going to confuse people and make a caricature of the faith.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I know sometimes I like to point out flaws more than present my own arguments, but I don't think this is the case. I said go to dictionary.com, and that website has definitions that would make my general argument make sense.

I think everything got straightened out in my last thread, unless you didn't look the words up or read everything I wrote about intent. It's interesting some of you agree with my recent post but some are somehow still arguing. The only point that I can see you possibly trying to draw out at this point is that one cannot have two opposing definitions to the same word. What you miss, if this is your argument, is that you can have such a broad definition so as to encompass both, which you would see if you looked it up:

Pride: Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement
This pleasure can be taken to extreme and become bad, or it cannot. It depends; it's relative.

Here's this even from the website:
[quote]anger
the emotion of instant displeasure on account of something evil that presents
itself to our view. In itself it is an original susceptibility of our nature,
just as love is, and is not necessarily sinful. It may, however, become sinful
when causeless, or excessive, or protracted (Matt. 5:22; Eph. 4:26; Col. 3:8).
As ascribed to God, it merely denotes his displeasure with sin and with sinners
(Ps. 7:11).[/quote]

Note the core definition: anger: the emotion of instant displeasure on account of something evil that presents itself to our view
It can be used in a bad way or a good way.

Again, you can find a definition to fit all of my words. (I do agree I did a bit much of twisting with avarice but hey)

These are legitimate definitions. If people use them in these ways and if the dictionary does, then how am I wrong to use them in that way? The only thing wrong that I did was distort the intent of the list, and I corrected myself in my last post.

Edited November 23, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[beatty07]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 23 2005, 12:56 AM']These are legitimate definitions. If people use them in these ways and if the dictionary does, then how am I wrong to use them in that way? The only thing wrong that I did was distort the intent of the list, and I corrected myself in my last post.
[right][snapback]798287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, that's the point that I was trying to express agreement with! The Church doesn't claim jurisdiction over the changing definitions of words. If people begin using "pride" or "anger" in a different sense then those intended in the deadly sins, that's inconvenient for us but just a minor obstacle really. Language is a fluid and fickle thing, and everyone has to deal with it. I didn't mean to accuse you of any wrongdoing!