Endorsing Sin, Even Venial Is Going Against Church Teachings

[ironmonk]

[b]To embrace and endorse a sin as if nothing is wrong with it is to go against Church teachings.[/b]

Even if we do the sin, if we say it's ok to do it, then we are going against Church teachings. Doing the sin and saying it's wrong is just being a sinner... as we are all sinners, we can at least acknowledge our errors so that by the grace of God we can work toward improving ourselves with the help of Christ and avoid the sin.

The Church teachings are simple: Do not sin.

Some might try to argue otherwise such as "Church teachings are to Love"... but that still means "Do not sin" because to [b]Love is not to sin[/b]. [u]To not sin is to Love[/u].

[quote]How little Love of God you have when you yield without a fight because it is not a grave sin!
- Saint Josemaria Escriva, The Way:328

It hurts me to see the danger of lukewarmness in which you place yourself when you do not strive seriously for perfection in your state in life.

Say with me: I don't want to be lukewarm! Confige timore tuo carnes meas, pierce thou my flesh with thy fear: grant me, my God, a filial fear that will make me react!
- Saint Josemaria Escriva, The Way:326

How sad you make me feel when you are not sorry for your venial sins! For, until you are, you will not begin to live real interior life.
- Saint Josemaria Escriva, The Way:330

You are lukewarm if you carry out lazily and reluctantly those things that have to do with our Lord; if deliberately or 'shrewdly' you look for some way of cutting down your duties; if you think only of yourself and of your comfort; if your conversations are idle and vain; if you do not abhor venial sin; if you act from human motives.
- Saint Josemaria Escriva, The Way:331

[url="http://www.escrivaworks.org/book/the_way/contents/14"]http://www.escrivaworks.org/book/the_way/contents/14[/url]

[/quote]


There are sins of action and sins of omission.

Examples of sins of action are obvious: theft, lies, lust, greed, etc...
Examples of sins of omission are not so obvious: not helping out when we can, not praying when we should, etc...


A sin of action is downloading mp3's from Kazaa illegally, to say nothing is wrong with downloading mp3's from Kazaa would be going against Church teachings.

Another sin of action would be to hire illegals or help illegals stay in America because it is breaking the law... to say nothing is wrong with helping illegals stay in the country is going against Church teachings because it is breaking the law and the Church teaches that nations have a right to regulate their immigration... and beause it is unjust to those legal aliens that spent a long time trying to come to the country... or those on the waiting list to come here.

Another way to go against Church teachings would be to place social justice over the needs of the unborn. Social justice is needed, but the majority of unborn babies lives are more important than social justice concerns. Most political issues in the USA regarding social justice is not "social justice" but how to achieve social justice... even though everytime I see a democrat speaking about republicans plans, they constantly lie about them... On a logical note, this should speak volumes about the democrats because they know they have to lie about rep plans because most rep econ plans (at national and state levels) do work or at least make sense if untried. Dems scream cut when there is no cut.

On a side note about lying politicians... when the senate passed the fraud in advertising law, it specifically allowed political ads to lie... I believe this was when the majority of the senate was democrat... again, it speaks volumes. It doesn't take much common sense to know which side to take when it comes to choosing which is closest to Catholic Church teachings.... but this is another topic.


So the whole point to this thread... if you endorse a sin, you are going against Church teachings.

All sin is evil.

[b]1700[/b]
...avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven...

[b]1777 [/b]
Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.[color="#3366FF"]49 [/color] It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

[b]1789 [/b]
Some rules apply in every case:
- [u]One may never do evil so that good may result from it[/u];

- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56

- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ." Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."


[b]1849 [/b]
Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

[b]1850 [/b]
Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." 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 contempt of God." In this proud self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

[b]1852 [/b]
There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."[color="#3366FF"]127[/color]

[b]1865 [/b]
Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

[b]1868 [/b]
Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.




[color="#3366FF"]49 [/color] cf. Rom 1:32

[color="#3366FF"]127[/color] Gal 5:19-21; cf. Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-9; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 2 Tim 3:2-5.



[b]Romans 1:28 [/b]
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
[b]29 [/b] They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
[b]30 [/b] and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
[b]31 [/b] They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[b]32 [/b] Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they [b]not only do them but give approval to those who practice them[/b].



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Jaime]

no one has endorsed sin.


And this does not belong on the debate table

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='969198' date='May 2 2006, 10:43 PM']
no one has endorsed sin.
[/quote]
Well, maybe just the little ones....

[jasJis]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='969162' date='May 2 2006, 08:16 PM']
[b]To embrace and endorse a sin as if nothing is wrong with it is to go against Church teachings.[/b]

Even if we do the sin, if we say it's ok to do it, then we are going against Church teachings. Doing the sin and saying it's wrong is just being a sinner... as we are all sinners, we can at least acknowledge our errors so that by the grace of God we can work toward improving ourselves with the help of Christ and avoid the sin.

The Church teachings are simple: Do not sin.

Some might try to argue otherwise such as "Church teachings are to Love"... but that still means "Do not sin" because to [b]Love is not to sin[/b]. [u]To not sin is to Love[/u].
There are sins of action and sins of omission.

Examples of sins of omission are not so obvious: not helping out when we can, not praying when we should, etc...

Another sin of action would be to hire illegals or help illegals stay in America because it is breaking the law... to say nothing is wrong with helping illegals stay in the country is going against Church teachings because it is breaking the law and the Church teaches that nations have a right to regulate their immigration... and beause it is unjust to those legal aliens that spent a long time trying to come to the country... or those on the waiting list to come here.

Another way to go against Church teachings would be to place social justice over the needs of the unborn. Social justice is needed, but the majority of unborn babies lives are more important than social justice concerns. Most political issues in the USA regarding social justice is not "social justice" but how to achieve social justice...

On a side note about lying politicians... when the senate passed the fraud in advertising law, it specifically allowed political ads to lie... I believe this was when the majority of the senate was democrat... again, it speaks volumes. It doesn't take much common sense to know which side to take when it comes to choosing which is closest to Catholic Church teachings.... but this is another topic.

So the whole point to this thread... if you endorse a sin, you are going against Church teachings.

All sin is evil.

[b]1777 [/b]
Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.[color="#3366FF"]49 [/color] It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

[b]1849 [/b]
Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

[b]1865 [/b]
Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

[b]1868 [/b]
Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.[/quote]CoS,
I edited it down to highlight a few points I 'think' I-monk is making. I 'think' the point I-monk is making has to do with ignoring one sin to correct another sin. Just as the question of whether Bush was entirely pro-Life arose, I-monk is raising the question if it's reasonablly logical to support a political party for 'social justice' reasons when the party's platform is supportive of, and wants tax $$ to pay for Abortion.

There is also the problem with providing the illegal aliens amnesty. Employers are at fault for hiring illegals and have helped create a grave injustice. Illegal immigrants have broken the law and so have employers. The fact that both have broken the law has to be considered when addressing the issue, otherwise it endorses breaking the law and undermines the legitimate respect a civil government is due according to Catholic teaching.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='969162' date='May 2 2006, 08:16 PM']






Another sin of action would be to hire illegals or help illegals stay in America because it is breaking the law... to say nothing is wrong with helping illegals stay in the country is going against Church teachings because it is breaking the law and the Church teaches that nations have a right to regulate their immigration... and beause it is unjust to those legal aliens that spent a long time trying to come to the country... or those on the waiting list to come here.


ironmonk
[/quote]


just because it is against the law, does not make something sinful. Breaking an administrative law is rarely considered sinful, only when one breaks a law that is also a moral law is it a sin.

Also, according to Rodger Cardinal Mahoney of Las Angeles, the exact opposite on what you say above is true. He would argue that it is sinful not to help illegal immigrants. I'd say, its usually best to heed the advice of a cardinal.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='969433' date='May 3 2006, 07:08 AM']
just because it is against the law, does not make something sinful. Breaking an administrative law is rarely considered sinful, only when one breaks a law that is also a moral law is it a sin.

Also, according to Rodger Cardinal Mahoney of Las Angeles, the exact opposite on what you say above is true. He would argue that it is sinful not to help illegal immigrants. I'd say, its usually best to heed the advice of a cardinal.
[/quote]

If the Cardinal follows Church teachings I would agree. Mahony is a disgrace to the Catholic Church. He goes against Church teachings. I suggest you get educated on what the US Conf. of Catholic Bishops have said which contradicts Cardinal Mahony... not to mention that little book called the Catechism. I will rejoice when Mahony is removed from his position for leading people astray or corrects his many errors and starts being Catholic. I hope and pray that Pope Benedict acts soon. Do a search on this forum for all of his anti-Catholicism he practices.

We are to follow every law that does not go against God. You are going against Church teachings.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are NOT allowed to do any evil that results in a greater good. ALL sin is evil.

Breaking any law that is not unjust is a sin. Unjust is not up to you or me, you need to read the Catechism.
All wrongdoing is sin... breaking the law is wrong.


Blindly follow no one's advice, check and double check the Scripture, the Catechism, and the Early Church Fathers writings to get a better understanding so you will not be fooled... you should also check and double check so that you have a firm understanding.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Jaime]

Cardinal Mahoney argued that making any law that would deny food to anyone (i.e. aid) would be an unjust law. He is rightfully following Church teachings

[quote]2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52

2246 It is a part of the Church's mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53[/quote]

It is immoral to make a law that would deny giving food or shelter to anyone who needs it. That supercedes the right of the state to create laws regulating immigration. If Cardinal Mahoney and others hadn't spoken out, the house bill may have become law. As it stands, it is doubtful that it will pass in its original form.

[jasJis]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='969433' date='May 3 2006, 05:08 AM']
just because it is against the law, does not make something sinful. Breaking an administrative law is rarely considered sinful, only when one breaks a law that is also a moral law is it a sin.

Also, according to Rodger Cardinal Mahoney of Las Angeles, the exact opposite on what you say above is true. He would argue that it is sinful not to help illegal immigrants. I'd say, its usually best to heed the advice of a cardinal.[/quote]'Cardinal' Mahoney is one of the the reasons why I don't want to identify myself as a Catholic. Mahoney is pretty much an idjut and is playing politics with people's lives. With that being said, people are also taking an extreme interpretation of what Mahoney has said to further their political agenda.

The Catechism is quite clear that a County has the RIGHT to regulate immigrants.
The Catechism is quite clear that immigrants are to consider themselves guests of the Country and obey it's laws.
The Catechism is quite clear that Governments have legitimate authority.
The Catechism is quite clear that Christians are to feed the hungry.

You don't pick one over the other. Morality isn't relative. One must attempt to address ALL the moral issues.

When considering how and why to help the hungry immigrants, one must also balance that with being respectful of legitimate Governmental Athority and the rights of the Citizens. Mahoney was a raving idiot to trumpet breaking the law instead of putting pressure on the Government to clarify and adjust the law to make real charity possible in a way that ensures that it also doesn't undermine the rights and responsiblities of the the citizens and Government. It's easy to check the Catechism:

[quote]1918 "There is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1).

[b]1919 Every human community needs an authority in order to endure and develop.[/b][b]1920 "The political community and public authority are based on human nature and therefore . . . belong to an order established by God" (GS 74 § 3).[/b]
1921 Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means.

1922 The diversity of political regimes is legitimate, provided they contribute to the good of the community.

1923 Political authority must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and must guarantee the conditions for the exercise of freedom.

1924 The common good comprises "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily" (GS 26 § 1).

1925 [b]The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.[/b]

1926 The dignity of the human person requires the pursuit of the common good. [b]Everyone should be concerned to create and support institutions that improve the conditions of human life.[/b]

1927 It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

[b]Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. [/b] Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.[/quote]

EDIT TO ADD:
The Church is quite clear that one can't choose to do 1 evil in order to negate another evil. Tht's Caffeterial Catholicism. Every effort must be made to do right by ALL the guidelines until you are boxed in the corner. That's why a Contraception mentality is not allowed by the Church, nor does it take lightly our obligation of obedience to Government. If we choose one moral obligation as being not relavant, then we'll be the Bishop who thinks the 'good name of the Church' is more important than the obligation of a pedophile priest facing the legal civil consequences.

Edited May 3, 2006 by jasJis

[ironmonk]

People [b]can[/b] help illegal immigrants and obey the law... People cannot help illegal immigrants stay in America without sinning.

Feeding someone on their journey is far from helping someone stay in America illegally.

I know a lot of illegals, and I like them, but I try my best not to sin... nothing on earth is worth sinning for. Nothing.

No one is talking about not feeding the hungry... We are talking about what is a sin and what is not. To break a just law is a sin, does not matter what kind of law it is. It is a federal offense to help illegal immigrants stay in America... this means we cannot give them a job, encourage them to stay in America, and give them a home to live in... this does not mean we can't give them a place to sleep on their way back to where they came from, this does not mean that we cannot give them food when they are hungry during their journey home... Otherwise we break the law and therefore we sin.

If we endorse any sin and say it's ok to do a sin, then we go against Catholic Teachings. End of Story, nothing to debate.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='969449' date='May 3 2006, 08:06 AM']
Cardinal Mahoney argued that making any law that would deny food to anyone (i.e. aid) would be an unjust law. He is rightfully following Church teachings
It is immoral to make a law that would deny giving food or shelter to anyone who needs it. That supercedes the right of the state to create laws regulating immigration. If Cardinal Mahoney and others hadn't spoken out, the house bill may have become law. As it stands, it is doubtful that it will pass in its original form.
[/quote]

THERE IS NO LAW AND IT IS NOT EVEN PROPOSED TO DENY FOOD TO ANYONE.

GIVING SHELTER TO SOMEONE ON THEIR WAY BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM IS FINE... GIVING SHELTER AND TRYING TO GET THEM TO STAY IN AMERICA ILLEGALLY IS A SIN.

Mahony is not a good example of a Catholic.

The law is NOT unjust. Mahony's thoughts on it are WRONG - as are yours.

[Jaime]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='969477' date='May 3 2006, 08:01 AM']
People [b]can[/b] help illegal immigrants and obey the law... People cannot help illegal immigrants stay in America without sinning.

Feeding someone on their journey is far from helping someone stay in America illegally.

I know a lot of illegals, and I like them, but I try my best not to sin... nothing on earth is worth sinning for. Nothing.

No one is talking about not feeding the hungry... We are talking about what is a sin and what is not. To break a just law is a sin, does not matter what kind of law it is. It is a federal offense to help illegal immigrants stay in America... this means we cannot give them a job, encourage them to stay in America, and give them a home to live in... this does not mean we can't give them a place to sleep on their way back to where they came from, this does not mean that we cannot give them food when they are hungry during their journey home... Otherwise we break the law and therefore we sin.

If we endorse any sin and say it's ok to do a sin, then we go against Catholic Teachings. End of Story, nothing to debate.
THERE IS NO LAW AND IT IS NOT EVEN PROPOSED TO DENY FOOD TO ANYONE.

GIVING SHELTER TO SOMEONE ON THEIR WAY BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM IS FINE... GIVING SHELTER AND TRYING TO GET THEM TO STAY IN AMERICA ILLEGALLY IS A SIN.

Mahony is not a good example of a Catholic.

The law is NOT unjust. Mahony's thoughts on it are WRONG - as are yours.
[/quote]


Then so are the thoughts of the people who voted for the bill. See the transcript of "Meet the Press

[quote]MR. RUSSERT: But if an illegal immigrant is working on a farm or a ranch in Texas, and cuts his arm or hand off they should not be given medical assistance, and they would be fined, whoever treated them, for violating the law that you voted for.

REP. BONILLA: The plight of many illegal aliens—and by the way, of course, our hospitals are compassionate and will continue to serve people who need help—but the plight...


MR. RUSSERT: Would that be breaking the—would that be breaking law?

REP. BONILLA: It probably would be, but the hospitals are not going to be held accountable. But first and foremost, the plight of a lot of these illegal aliens, a lot of people want to—the demonstrators and critics—want to blame our country for their problems. You know, these dysfunctional, oppressive, in many cases, governments where these people flee, flee from are the, the ones that are responsible for the unfortunate situation these people are in, and they’re not doing a darned thing to help their own people.[/quote]

If the very people who voted for the bill believe that it would be breaking the law, the Mahoney was just in speaking out. And since you agree that we are called to feed and shelter illegals, then again I submit that no one has endorsed sin. There isn't a debate here. This doesn't belong on the debate table.

Edited May 3, 2006 by jaime

[zwergel88]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='969437' date='May 3 2006, 05:24 AM']


You are going against Church teachings.

[/quote]


I have a serious problem with people here who think that they can tell one another what to do. I hate to have to inform you that you are not the religious police. Let me remind you that pride and self-righteousness can be sinful also.

Just make sure that you let me know when you are ordained a bishop then maybe I'll take you're advice. Untill then I think that I am perfectly capable of following Church teachings by myself.

Edited May 3, 2006 by zwergel88

[jasJis]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='969527' date='May 3 2006, 08:14 AM']
I have a serious problem with people here who think that they can tell one another what to do. I hate to have to inform you that you are not the religious police. Let me remind you that pride and self-righteousness can be sinful also.

Just make sure that you let me know when you are ordained a bishop then maybe I'll take you're advice. Untill then I think that I am perfectly capable of following Church teachings by myself.[/quote]
This from the girl who posted these gems:

[code]That's how I feel and I don't think that I should have to suffer the scorn of my peers for that view.

Santorum is not a nice guy. He is a big fan of the K street lobbyists and allowing them to right legistlation. He called the K Street project in which lobbyists were hired to work in congressional offices "good government" Also, his economic policy smells of elderberries.

Don't vote for Santorum who may be against abortion but supports killing people through war, poverty, and exploitation.

I have a serious problem with people here who think that they can tell one another what to do.

I'll vote for whoever I want and I don't need you to tell me how.

I think that the actions of the boy wearing the shirt are what is shameful.

Again I find many errors in your comments.
[/code]Santorum says that's his opinion and he doesn't think he should have to suffer the scorn of his peers for that vew.

Santorum asks what kind of police are you that you can say he isn't nice and his economic policy smells of elderberries.

CMom asks why are you telling her not to vote for Santorum. She's capable of making up her own mind on how to vote.

Are you the moral police to judge the actions of the boy as being shameful? He's expressing his opinion.

Let's not get upset if someone points out our errors if we are willing to point out theirs.


All in good fun. Just kidding.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='969527' date='May 3 2006, 10:14 AM']
I have a serious problem with people here who think that they can tell one another what to do. I hate to have to inform you that you are not the religious police. Let me remind you that pride and self-righteousness can be sinful also.

Just make sure that you let me know when you are ordained a bishop then maybe I'll take you're advice. Untill then I think that I am perfectly capable of following Church teachings by myself.
[/quote]

I am a loyal and faithful Catholic that obeys the Church and knows it's teachings well.

This has nothing to do with pride. This has to do with the demands of charity... Charity demands correction.

I have provided the Scripture and Catechism that clearly show the Church teaching and what is right in the matter. Nothing has been posted that contradicts it.

If you choose to go against Church teachings, you've got that right. I am obligated to correct people least their blood will be on my hands. If I was wrong, I would want correction as I have stated numerous times on this board. Correction comes from the Church... Scripture, Church Documents, Early Church Father writings, and the Catechism. If you don't have these to back your stance, how can you possibily know the Church teachings? You can't. If you do not read the bible and the Catechism, how can you know Church teachings? You can't.

Blindly following people who claim to be Catholic is foolish. If one read the bible, they would know this...

[b]2 Peter 3:15 [/b]
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
[b]16 [/b] speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
[b]17 [/b] Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b] And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.
[b]31 [/b] So be vigilant and remember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you with tears.



Bad clergy and laymen will pay dearly for leading people astray.



[quote] I have a serious problem with people here who think that they can tell one another what to do. [/quote]

So how do you live with yourself when you do it? You are doing it by saying it. You telling people not to tell others what to do? Very ironic.

If you want to blindly follow someone who goes against Church teachings, you have that right because of free will. If you love Christ, I don't understand why you would. It is illogical to go against one's maker... to go against the Church is to go against God because to reject the Church is to reject Christ (St. Luke 10:16).

One faith... not two. If you think it's ok to sin, then you really in line with the One faith built by Christ and you are going against it. Maybe you don't like to hear that, and if that's the case, then maybe you need to get in line with the fullness of the truth in the Church.

The truth will not change... to endorse sin is to go against the Church teachings... rather you want to admit it or not. All sin is evil. No evil may be done to achieve a greater good. <- This too is in the Catechism as shown above.

It doesn't say "no sin, except for..."... it clearly says "no sin."

There is always away to achieve good without sin, maybe you don't like it, maybe someone close to you doesn't like it.... but if you put that person or situation above God's laws, then you could have broke the first commandment which is a mortal sin.

If you don't want to give thought and meditate on the teachings of the Church, then you have that right because of free will.


Don't come ranting to me about how I am wrong or made you mad without coming with Church teachings to correct me. If you can correct me with clear Church teachings - not your interpretation of them or any other liberal on the board's personal interpretation - I will gladly change my stance.

[b]It is written.[/b]

2 + 2 will always equal 4.
Endorsing sin will always equal going against Church teachings.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Lil Red]

i just [i]love[/i] big document dumps

[St.MGoretti]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='969433' date='May 3 2006, 07:08 AM']
just because it is against the law, does not make something sinful. Breaking an administrative law is rarely considered sinful, only when one breaks a law that is also a moral law is it a sin.
[/quote]

I would like to agree with this comment as well as adding my own opinion. Did Jesus not go against the laws of his time? Did He not say that we should love above all and to help others even if that means we give something of ourselves for them? There is no one on this earth who can judge the actions and the souls of others, only God can place judgement on what is right or wrong. Jesus helped Mary Magdellan from being stoned because she was possesed by devils. Then it was against the law to help such people. He also cured a crippled women on the sabbath, and this is only one example of how He had performed miracles on the sabbath, and at that time this was also illegal. Are you telling me that Jesus was sinning by helping her and healing other? Didn't He say "He who has not sinned cast the first stone"? Laws are there to regulate our economy and other such things, not to regulate the position of the soul. Yes there are things that are obviously wrong and sinful, but there are things that are sinful by not doing even if to do them you are going against the law. Again one can not judge the position of anothers soul. If Jesus went against laws to help others and you are saying that to go against the law is sinful then you are claiming that Jesus himself had sinned. You might want to rethink your accusation.