And forgive us our sins...

[Oryx]

I don't think these surveys earn you the right to speak for most of all Catholics.

None of the surveys you showed were on a global scale, as all of them (except for the 12 countries thing) were done on US residents alone. There are about 1.2 billion Catholics spread all over the corners of the world. The percentage of Catholics in the US definitely isn't the biggest (25%).

You're going by percentage of the country that's Catholic, which is misguided - you should instead start with the Catholic population and see how much of that is in each country. In that case, the US is number 3 in amount of Catholics.

Regardless, you're derailing the point - even if you assume that no other Catholic in any other part of the world feels this way, it's still a big chunk that disagrees with the teachings while calling themselves Catholic, which was Alessi's point. The people exist, so arguing about whether "most" is an accurate description of them is irrelevant to the point.

 

[The Void]

You're going by percentage of the country that's Catholic, which is misguided - you should instead start with the Catholic population and see how much of that is in each country. In that case, the US is number 3 in amount of Catholics.

Regardless, you're derailing the point - even if you assume that no other Catholic in any other part of the world feels this way, it's still a big chunk that disagrees with the teachings while calling themselves Catholic, which was Alessi's point. The people exist, so arguing about whether "most" is an accurate description of them is irrelevant to the point.

Whether or not "most" is accurate is very relevant, as the word creates a heavier impression than "half of" or "a big chunk of".

 

[Oryx]

Whether or not "most" is accurate is very relevant, as the word creates a heavier impression than "half of" or "a big chunk of".

But then you have to read the rest of the point, which is that "within the ranks of each denomination, there is dissent from official church teaching" and that people are thinking for themselves. This is true whether or not "most" is. Thus, derailing to quibble on an irrelevant point instead of addressing the actual point of the paragraph.

 

[Chiere]

Most Catholics? Do you mind citing sources for this one? If that were true, then that's really sad to hear.

I don't remember where I heard it but I do remember a poll was taken of Catholics and it found that about 73% (or so) of Catholics had no problem with same-sex marriage, contraception or remarriage after divorce.

 

[The Void]

But then you have to read the rest of the point, which is that "within the ranks of each denomination, there is dissent from official church teaching" and that people are thinking for themselves. This is true whether or not "most" is. Thus, derailing to quibble on an irrelevant point instead of addressing the actual point of the paragraph.

It is still not irrelevant, because the weight of the matter can lie on the word "most". If "most" of 1.2 billion people jointly disobeyed the teachings of their organization, it would largely discredit that organization.

I don't remember where I heard it but I do remember a poll was taken of Catholics and it found that about 73% (or so) of Catholics had no problem with same-sex marriage, contraception or remarriage after divorce.

Again, that only counts for Catholics in the US.

 

[Oryx]

It is still not irrelevant, because the weight of the matter can lie on the word "most". If "most" of 1.2 billion people jointly disobeyed the teachings of their organization, it would largely discredit that organization.



Again, that only counts for Catholics in the US.

But the argument isn't that the organization should be discredited, so it's irrelevant to the argument he is trying to make. We have determined that no one has immediate on-hand data of worldwide Catholicism so "most" may not be right. So why don't you address his argument instead of focusing on an irrelevant detail to talk about an argument that literally no one has made?

 

[The Void]

But the argument isn't that the organization should be discredited, so it's irrelevant to the argument he is trying to make. We have determined that no one has immediate on-hand data of worldwide Catholicism so "most" may not be right. So why don't you address his argument instead of focusing on an irrelevant detail to talk about an argument that literally no one has made?

The reason I was so keen on correcting the sentence is because it was there, and right beside the sentence's main point. To quote it again:

And even within the ranks of each denomination, there is dissent from official church teaching. Most Catholics use contraception, support gay marriage and really don't have much problem with someone who is divorced getting re-married.

Can you imagine a post on a thread about racism that says: "Racism is present in the world even today. Most Americans are racists and have a big problem with African Americans."

Then someone goes and corrects him on the "most Americans" part, after which another person tells him it is "irrelevant to the point".

So yes, I was making a whole new point by correcting that sentence.

 

[Phantom1]

Right, so I feel I need to give and example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "a summary of principles, often in question-and-answer format". Documents of religious instruction have been written since the beginning of Christianity and the catechism is typically an assemblage of these smaller documents into one large compilation of Church doctrine and teachings."

The CCC is a literal list of the things Catholicism teaches and the basic things that all/any good Catholics should know and understand. It is considered the basics. A book of guidelines so to speak, and it is very simple to understand if you have a decent understanding of any language.

A basic definition of sin, according to the CCC

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."

Now, according to the Church there are a few different types of sin; Original, Venial, and Mortal. These are a sort of list of severity/gravity. Venial sin is a... lesser sin, whereas a Mortal sin is of greater offense. Stealing from a merchant is a Venial sin, murder is a Mortal one, for example. (CCC 1854-1864)

Now, according to it, we're all sinners, whether we want to be or not. It is ingrained into humanity from the Fall. This is called Original Sin, which is often forgiven/removed at Baptism, but the effects of it remain because once a sinner, always a sinner. Once you sin, you will sin again, whether you mean to or not. (CCC 1865)

There is even a 'insanity defense'. (CCC 1860)

Then to top it off, god ALLOWS sin to exist in the world, just so that he can shower us in his mercy and like him better.

"God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom 11:32).

Sounds like a bit of a jerk to me. This all powerful being allows bad things to happen to good people so that when the occasionally good thing happens to them they love him more. Ass.

As for my belief... I don't have one. Sin is a purely religious notion.

 

[The Void]

Wow, you people argue and argue over what Catholicism believes is a sin...

Yet not one, NOT ONE, bothered to ACTUALLY LOOK IT UP.

At no point in this thread did we argue about the Catholic point of view on what sin is, so there was entirely no need to look it up. Everything you've quoted on the CCC is true, but there was no actual argument about the definition of sin.

 

[Phantom1]

Thanks for mentioning that, I was hoping someone would.

No where in it does it mention what constitutes as a sin. It gives a vague, all encompassing description that is open for your own interpretation as well as the Commandments and how your acts either follow them or don't.

Now that one line about the 'insanity defense'?

Let's look the CCC on homosexuality.

I'll just copy/paste.

"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. "

'their condition'. The Church believes that homosexuality is a condition that is literally to be treated through Chastity.

"2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Gay Marriage, by law's point of view, is actually not against any religion. It is only against religion if it is a religious marriage and consummated.

Now, onto contraception/birth control, and divorce.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

By this. It does not matter what a group of individual Catholics believe. This, what I just quoted above, is what ALL OF THEM SHOULD BELIEVE. Those who don't are what are called 'religious moderates' and they are just a danger to their own religion as they are to society because their neglection of only certain aspects of their religions leads to more problems than necessary. These people either split from the Church and become non-religious, or they split and form their own, causing problems. (this is over generations of course. Last time a big thing like that happened was called the Protestant Reformation, might have heard of it.)

 

[Oryx]

Thanks for mentioning that, I was hoping someone would.

No where in it does it mention what constitutes as a sin. It gives a vague, all encompassing description that is open for your own interpretation as well as the Commandments and how your acts either follow them or don't.

Now that one line about the 'insanity defense'?

Let's look the CCC on homosexuality.

I'll just copy/paste.

"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. "

'their condition'. The Church believes that homosexuality is a condition that is literally to be treated through Chastity.

"2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Gay Marriage, by law's point of view, is actually not against any religion. It is only against religion if it is a religious marriage and CONSUMMATED.

Now, onto contraception/birth control, and divorce.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

By this. It does not matter what a group of individual Catholics believe. This, what I just quoted above, is what ALL OF THEM SHOULD BELIEVE. Those who don't are what are called 'religious moderates' and they are just a danger to their own religion as they are to society because their neglection of only certain aspects of their religions leads to more problems than necessary. These people either split from the Church and become non-religious, or they split and form their own, causing problems. (this is over generations of course. Last time a big thing like that happened as called the Protestant Reformation, might have heard of it.)

The Void's first point stands - I'm fairly certain no one that has posted so far is even Catholic, so that would be why no one is looking up specifically Catholic doctrine on sin. The discussion on the nature of sin does not by definition have to include Catholicism at all.

 

[Phantom1]

... You people were just talking about the percentage of Catholics that believed in things like birth control, etc. Just a page ago, hell the first post on this page.

 

[Oryx]

Why do people completely ignore the context of everything? The whole point of that discussion is that people within religions don't necessarily interact with the religion in the same way. It does not mean that anyone here is Catholic or that the Catholic doctrine is the end of the argument, to the point of CAPSING about how no one LOOKED IT UP.

No one argued about what Catholicism sees as a sin. The argument was only over whether most Catholics interact with their religion in the same way, and even then the whole argument was irrelevant to the point. Whether or not the doctrine matches what people believe is irrelevant to what they believe; saying "but they're wrong!!!" doesn't change their beliefs, which means it doesn't change the point.

 

[Phantom1]

I was giving Catholicism as an example of what sin is as I understand it, since I am a former Catholic and I understand it best. The second post there was to respond to the discussion about Catholic populations or whatever that was. I wasn't trying to relate with anyone else from the Catholicism post, and I apologize if I came off as rude. I did not intend to do so. I was answering the op.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Sin is more about enforcing rules through negative feedback than anything. It's not really a "thing". A lot of the time I notice in my life that things that are considered "sinful" are questionable in certain situations, and completely okay in others.

A great example would be cheating. Cheating is considered one of the worst things you can do in a relationship, and frankly if you're in a marriage I do agree that you should be honest with your partner - however inside non-married relationships it gets a lot more complicated. I used to think cheating was always a bad thing and thus "sinful" until I got involved with a situation involving me and a guy and his girlfriend. It was extremely hard to talk about it to people due to the unnecessary stigma and me and him thought we were horrible for even having interest in each other - but it turns out that 1) they were dating for a short period before he met and became interested in me, 2) the woman shows little interest towards him to exploitative extents and 3) they have very little in common. I learned then that relationships at this stage are kind of a "try it before you buy it" kind of thing and stigmatizing people for not liking the boat they're in just makes things worse. He can't be honest because he is afraid of aggressive confrontations (he describes it as letting loose tigers) and he's afraid of breaking up for the same reason, and because of the stigma involving cheating in society he can't even talk about it with others, bar very close friends who understand the whole deal. It's not always as one dimensional as "this person do something bad".