Discussion Points
#1
I want to know your opinions on the following points, either choose one or all.  Don't think I am trolling or something, I just want a good, clean discussion, particularly on sticky situations that may otherwise be unclear in some minds.

1.  First one, according to the Church's teaching, for a sin to be considered to mortal, it must satisfy three conditions:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

Now i think we can all agree upon these conditions.  Now I have had priests and others talk in more detail about the third, that is delibate consent.  And they talked about it in this context mostly saying if there is a particularly habit of which the person is inclined too, that person may not be culpable of mortal sin.  Of course, the main example is masturbation.  If you are a young person with various raging hormones let's say, is this reason enough for it not to be considered a mortal sin.  In addition, let's say you struggle and are constantly in need of relief, you know it is wrong and you work so hard to not to it, but eventually you give in, what is your status?  Ultimately the question is when is deliberate consent truly deliberate consent?

2.  From what I have read in science papers and such, about 25% of embryos fail to be implanted naturally.  Now since we believe live begins at conception, how are we to view this statistic.

3.  Traditionalist seem to be fairly insular, in that the FSSP or SSPX communities seem to be made of folks who just only want the EF and nothing else.  Which is fine and all, but it seems that they don't try to get friends or family to come with them to the Trad. Latin Mass.  In addition, as we know traditional catholicism is more than the Latin Mass, but also a way of life.  What is the best way to open the typical (and some exceptional) NOers to either the EF or to embrace a more "authenic" Catholicism, rather than the water down, half-protestanized Catholicism that is fairly common in most parishes.

Any takers???

I am going to sit back and eat cupcakes and drink kool aid  :laughing:
Reply
#2
1.  Whether the act of masturbation is a mortal sin or not in a given case, it would seem to me that, in addition to the act, it definitely involves deliberate impure thoughts at the least, which would be a mortal sin.

I had a priest tell me once that if I had any doubts about a sin being mortal, then it couldn't possibly be mortal.  I'm not sure I buy that and I tend to confess sins even if there is doubt, but then I tend toward scrupulousness, so..........

That's all I've got.  :tiphat:
Reply
#3
1./ In the case of the masturbation probably the full perception of the gravity of the sin could make it lesser culpable

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

If this would be habit only, then cohabitation, especially adulterous cohabitation or active homosexual act could be lesser culpable too.

2. Life is not identical with the unity of the body with the immortal soul. Embrios not implanted almost certainly don't have immortal soul.

3./ Start by stopping to call them is a negative term: NOers, accept their dignity, as much as you expect it for your stand.

laszlo


(08-13-2009, 05:42 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: I want to know your opinions on the following points, either choose one or all.  Don't think I am trolling or something, I just want a good, clean discussion, particularly on sticky situations that may otherwise be unclear in some minds.

1.  First one, according to the Church's teaching, for a sin to be considered to mortal, it must satisfy three conditions:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

Now i think we can all agree upon these conditions.  Now I have had priests and others talk in more detail about the third, that is delibate consent.  And they talked about it in this context mostly saying if there is a particularly habit of which the person is inclined too, that person may not be culpable of mortal sin.  Of course, the main example is masturbation.  If you are a young person with various raging hormones let's say, is this reason enough for it not to be considered a mortal sin.   In addition, let's say you struggle and are constantly in need of relief, you know it is wrong and you work so hard to not to it, but eventually you give in, what is your status?  Ultimately the question is when is deliberate consent truly deliberate consent?

2.  From what I have read in science papers and such, about 25% of embryos fail to be implanted naturally.  Now since we believe live begins at conception, how are we to view this statistic.

3.  Traditionalist seem to be fairly insular, in that the FSSP or SSPX communities seem to be made of folks who just only want the EF and nothing else.  Which is fine and all, but it seems that they don't try to get friends or family to come with them to the Trad. Latin Mass.  In addition, as we know traditional catholicism is more than the Latin Mass, but also a way of life.  What is the best way to open the typical (and some exceptional) NOers to either the EF or to embrace a more "authenic" Catholicism, rather than the water down, half-protestanized Catholicism that is fairly common in most parishes.

Any takers???

I am going to sit back and eat cupcakes and drink kool aid  :laughing:
Reply
#4
(08-13-2009, 07:48 PM)glgas Wrote: 1./ In the case of the masturbation probably the full perception of the gravity of the sin could make it lesser culpable

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

If this would be habit only, then cohabitation, especially adulterous cohabitation or active homosexual act could be lesser culpable too.

2. Life is not identical with the unity of the body with the immortal soul. Embrios not implanted almost certainly don't have immortal soul.

3./ Start by stopping to call them is a negative term: NOers, accept their dignity, as much as you expect it for your stand.

laszlo


(08-13-2009, 05:42 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: I want to know your opinions on the following points, either choose one or all.  Don't think I am trolling or something, I just want a good, clean discussion, particularly on sticky situations that may otherwise be unclear in some minds.

1.  First one, according to the Church's teaching, for a sin to be considered to mortal, it must satisfy three conditions:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

Now i think we can all agree upon these conditions.  Now I have had priests and others talk in more detail about the third, that is delibate consent.  And they talked about it in this context mostly saying if there is a particularly habit of which the person is inclined too, that person may not be culpable of mortal sin.  Of course, the main example is masturbation.  If you are a young person with various raging hormones let's say, is this reason enough for it not to be considered a mortal sin.   In addition, let's say you struggle and are constantly in need of relief, you know it is wrong and you work so hard to not to it, but eventually you give in, what is your status?  Ultimately the question is when is deliberate consent truly deliberate consent?

2.  From what I have read in science papers and such, about 25% of embryos fail to be implanted naturally.  Now since we believe live begins at conception, how are we to view this statistic.

3.  Traditionalist seem to be fairly insular, in that the FSSP or SSPX communities seem to be made of folks who just only want the EF and nothing else.  Which is fine and all, but it seems that they don't try to get friends or family to come with them to the Trad. Latin Mass.  In addition, as we know traditional catholicism is more than the Latin Mass, but also a way of life.  What is the best way to open the typical (and some exceptional) NOers to either the EF or to embrace a more "authenic" Catholicism, rather than the water down, half-protestanized Catholicism that is fairly common in most parishes.

Any takers???

I am going to sit back and eat cupcakes and drink kool aid  :laughing:

I did not mean to call them negative terms, I often attend the NO because of my options, but in my experience the people I know who are active in the NO are so stubborned against the old Mass, that they are not even open to experience it just once.  Is it everyone, no.  I am sure if we switch the mass from the OF to EF, 75% of the people wouldn't really care as Church is Church to them and they think that just attending saves their souls.  And I am not intentionally being negative as being someone who has attended various kinds of Protestant services as well as numerous NO Masses, the Novus Ordo seems to be more in line with that then the EF.  Now does the OF have to be this way no, it doesn't.  It is certainly valid and can be quite beautiful if done correctly (and not neccessarily with ad orientem and latin).  Also I didn't realize NOers is an offensive term, I would like to apologize to those in the crowd (and by the way I use the term EFers or TLMers and so on). 

Also, I know the Cathechism verse for question 1, but what is an equitable judgement?  Because I can see that there is great potential for abuse in this terminology.  Is it black and white, nay?  But there has to be a more concrete criteria. 

That is interesting your response for question 2, because I was watching the World Over on EWTN earlier in the year and they were talking about the release of Dignity of the Human Person, if I got the translation correct.  Anyhow, they were talking about all the embyros stored in freezers, and Raymond Arroyo and the priest he was interviewing were talking about the neccessity even though they can't be implanted via IVF, must be preserved for sometime.  I guess we are truly entering a brave new world.
Reply
#5
(08-13-2009, 05:42 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: Now i think we can all agree upon these conditions.  Now I have had priests and others talk in more detail about the third, that is delibate consent.  And they talked about it in this context mostly saying if there is a particularly habit of which the person is inclined too, that person may not be culpable of mortal sin.  Of course, the main example is masturbation.  If you are a young person with various raging hormones let's say, is this reason enough for it not to be considered a mortal sin.   In addition, let's say you struggle and are constantly in need of relief, you know it is wrong and you work so hard to not to it, but eventually you give in, what is your status?  Ultimately the question is when is deliberate consent truly deliberate consent?
The only ones who are capable of truly knowing are God and the person. A person can only guess, based on their limited knowledge.

It is important, I think, for priests and leaders to always emphasis free will unless a person is obviously not fully consented (so, telling a bunch of teens "you all have raging hormones so it isn't a mortal sin" is a very bad idea, but a person who has a lifelong habit, severe stress and severe guilt, would be able to get such advice from a priest, so they do not fall into despair.

If a person does not have guilt and severe remorse for a sin, then it is almost definately something which should be considered mortal by default, otherwise, it is just an excuse and a dangerous position to think it isn't mortal.

Quote:2.  From what I have read in science papers and such, about 25% of embryos fail to be implanted naturally.  Now since we believe live begins at conception, how are we to view this statistic.
100% of humans die. This statistic can be viewed as a result of the fall, but as always, God handles the details for us.

Quote:3.  Traditionalist seem to be fairly insular, in that the FSSP or SSPX communities seem to be made of folks who just only want the EF and nothing else.  Which is fine and all, but it seems that they don't try to get friends or family to come with them to the Trad. Latin Mass.  In addition, as we know traditional catholicism is more than the Latin Mass, but also a way of life.  What is the best way to open the typical (and some exceptional) NOers to either the EF or to embrace a more "authenic" Catholicism, rather than the water down, half-protestanized Catholicism that is fairly common in most parishes.
Devotion to the Sacred Heart, Immaculate Heart, Rosary, Divine Office, good books such as the Imitation of Christ or True Devotion to Mary.

Quote:I am going to sit back and eat cupcakes and drink kool aid  :laughing:

Kool aid?! You aren't in some sort of cult are you...

Reply
#6

Quote:I am going to sit back and eat cupcakes and drink kool aid  :laughing:

Quote:Kool aid?! You aren't in some sort of cult are you...

But our Dear Leader drinks kool aid and is always talking about how the stimulus is allowing more Americans to buy cupcakes.  :laughing:
Reply
#7
#2 - Life begins at conception, period.  If that life fails to implant, that is God's will and a child has been lost and a soul is now in Limbo.  The effects of Original Sin.

#3 - The best thing you can do for a Novus Ordo person (I don't care if they don't like the term, it is what it is) is set a good example and pray for them.  The longer this goes on, the further away from the True Mass they get.  Most of the ones I know don't want to go to the TLM.  It would mean a change in their lifestyle and they like it the way it is.  My MIL just married a Methodist and her priest told her that it was ok to go to Saturday night mass and then go to Sunday morning services with her new husband.  Real Catholic there.

She and the rest of the family know that if they were to go to our Church (SSPX) things would be stricter and they don't want any part of that.  They like wearing shorts to mass and not worrying about eating meat on Fridays, and "not having to worry about being Catholic around their friends during the rest of the week.'    This is also true of most of the NOs that I know.  Tell them the truth when they ask and always set a good example and be cheerful.  Nothing worse than an unhappy Catholic although it is a sad time in our history.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)