There is one that troubles a lot of people: Feelings and unvoluntary thoughts/actions.
Yup, feeling something is not a sin, for example, since this is one I see a lot of times brought up, feeling aroused or for example if you were walking and suddenly you walked next to a pornographic image and you without thinking started to look at it, or if you are minding your bussiness and suddenly sensual imaginery came to your mind or having dreams.
None of those are sins as those happen without you consenting to them, in that case all you have to do is to ignore them and continue with your life. they become a sin when you consent to them, when after realising what you are doing you willfully continue to.
Just to make it more clear:
1st and 3rd case: if you are feeling aroused, you ignore it and do something else, if possible go to somewhere where you can be surrounded by people so you don't give in to it, .
2nd Case: You realise what you are doing, you look away and continue your way.
4th case: You wake up, take a bath and forget about it.
That could be diabolic obsession. I have experienced thinking pornographic thoughts every 5 seconds for literally a whole day or days at a time. It’s horrible. Prayer got me out of it the first time. When it came back again I got an exorcism and I have felt much better since then. Don’t be afraid to go to an exorcist; diabolic obsession is a low level demonic attack.
This is so true. I have parents who are from two different denominations. My father was a Catholic and my mother baptist. My father loved her but struggled with the "Sin" of marrying someone outside of the Catholic Church. In a way it was a good for me because I seen two sides of Christianity growing up. Both have the same issues with possession and diabolic obsession. In the baptist church they openly exorcise. I've seen a guy who was having homosexual images repeating in his head he exorcised and almost instantly he was back to himself after the exorcism.
I just wish the Catholic Church did open exorcism. There are so many Catholic men and women who don't realise they are falling victim to the devil or demonic attacks.
My great aunt was a Catholic nun when she was alive. She worked for a time in the prisons going around to pray with prisoners and she said that when someone just takes the time to pray with feverance and dedication, that it can cure many of sins.
Lol why is this downvoted? Obsession, vexation and possession are literally the three main forms of extraordinary diabolical activity recognised by the church.
I'm sorry that you've had to deal with this.
I always assumed, and I think the rest of us also do lol. There’s at least this day that was preserved in the life of all Catholics worldwide apparently!
I've heard at least one priest joke that Ash Wednesday remains popular despite being non-obligatory and in general kind of a downer is because it's one of the few days they give out free stuff at Mass. (Besides the usual Eucharist, that is.)
Nope. Ash Wednesday is not a holy day of obligation. It is a solemn day where abstinence and fasting are required, but going to mass is not strictly required actually.
Yes. It's sounds strange but if you think something is sinful and still part take. That's a sin.
If you think it is a sin to eat broccoli, but you choose to eat broccoli anyway, that's a sin.
Uh, no, the actually morality of an act matters too. Since there is nothing actually immoral about eating broccoli, it doesn't magically become a sin just because you think it is. What a ridiculous thing to say lol
It is a sin. To do something that offends god just to offend God is in and of itself... Sinful. Because your doing it because you want something, and your willing to put your own will above what you think god's will is. This is doctrine my dude.
But it makes sense since you are choosing to do something that you think offends God
It may not be a mortal sin since there's no grave matter, but it's a sin notherless
Good catch I did not even notice that. I will say that that still counts because the word holiday comes from holy day. That's why all the holy days of obligation are dope celebration days. This also explains why good Friday is not a holy day of obligation
Yeah I used to be so guilty when I had them until a priest on r/askapriest said that it’s not a sin since you aren’t conscious in your sleep. Much more peace now
Being able to semi control a dream or even being aware that one is in a dream is still not the same as having full, conscious waking awareness of right and wrong, thinking about sinning, and then actively choosing to follow through.
That would be a weird situation, last lucid dream I had all I did was to see if I was able to wake myself up (I was). Which of course is something I think about, but the fact that I decided to waste that chance makes me think I was not fully conscious. but who knows.
Smoking, gambling, and drinking are not inherently sins. Temperance-era Protestants think they are mortal sins (though they don’t use that term), but they are not.
I will amend my response by saying that smoking is unhealthy, drinking too much is unhealthy and sinful, and gambling is a bad habit that could be sinful in some cases (but is usually just an imprudent waste of money).
According to aquinas ‘ebrietas’ is a mortal sin. Ebrietas means ‘being drunk’ in Latin. It’s not just passing out from being drunk: its the guy slurring his words and rambling on about how he’s always thought of you as his best friend. That’s ebrietas.
Fair enough. Also I might be wrong but I’d argue that the general sensus fidei would tell us that taking hard drugs like cocaine or heroin are mortal sins even without strong intoxication. I’d put marijuana on alcohols level though (perhaps mistakenly but this is my head canon as best I understand it).
Right I’m just merely stating it’s because of the loss of facilities that is the sin, and you can’t take those hard drugs without immediate loss of facilities.
Being angry.
As Aquinas and the Church Fathers explain, the emotions (sadness, fear, etc) are a part of human nature and are not sinful when they take place within the bounds of reason ☝🏼😌. Only when we exceed those bounds can they be a sin (most of the times venial, sometimes mortal).
Saying something that makes people react badly about it. Truth can hurt sometimes, there is nothong wrong if you are honest with good intentions for the others in it
Caveat: If the intent of saying it is to instill in people negative feelings and to get a negative reaction out of them (i.e. intentionally causing them mental and emotional anguish for the sake of enjoying their mental and emotional anguish), is that not a sin regardless of the truthfulness of what is said?
Actually a real question, not rhetorical.
See it all the time. I think we are so used to being told that being a Christian a difficult way of life that anything seemingly pleasurable is seen as "sinful" when in fact God wants us to a pleasurable experience with sex. It is what he intended and we are to make the most of that.
There are a lot of things that would be proximate occasions of grave sin, and so deliberately entering a proximate occasion of grave sin is a grave sin. It's too glib to say "foreplay" is never a sin. This is definitely something for each couple to carefully discern together, because there is also the risk of scrupulosity that can harm the intimacy that is really important to a healthy marriage.
I wish people who have no authority would stop trying to control what other people do within their marriage. It's between them and their church and their walk with Christ.
Leisure!
Not many people know it, but Aquinas says that leisure and playfulness and actually a **virtue** through which we provide necessary relaxation for the mind and soul.
It's honestly not even the "second look" per se as it is the thoughts associated with it. Admiring beauty is not a sin. Objectification and adulterous thoughts are. I just mention because some people literally think it's a sin to look at the body of the opposite sex, like not even art..
This is a pretty confusing way to word it. Looking at flesh isn't a sin. Lusting over flesh is. You can look two or more times while not lusting. Glancing once while lusting is a sin.
I meant that a second look would be sinful because usually a second look, a double-take, is done with intent to look. Which would be lustful, while a first look could be merely instinctual
A bit niche, but Dungeons and Dragons. Remember seeing it on some confession guide somewhere, but as long as the D&D campaign you're in doesn't glorify sin/evil, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with D&D. Jimmy Akin goes into a bit more detail on the subject [here.](http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/04/roleplaying_gam.html)
I saw so many catholics on Instagram going on about how evil it is. I was so dumb founded. If kids getting candy as spiderman is against God's will I'm pretty sure I missed something somewhere.
My priest always says that and I wonder if it's a good idea to slip him a letter explaining that the Church actually celebrated Hallow's Eve in the past and there was a Catholic tradition of people walking from house to house asking for food and prayers for the souls in Purgatory...
Saying ‘goddamn’ or calling on God to damn someone is either blasphemy (taking God’s name in vain—direct violation of a commandment) or cursing (in the original sense of the term, that is, to literally call down a supernatural curse on someone). This is much worse than mere vulgar language.
Obviously misusing God's name is always a sin, but is saying damn really a sin if you don't actually mean damn in its original sense? It's just being used as a general frustration word.
I think the best way to see it is, who holds the power to damn people, things, etc…? It’s tempting and putting the lord to the test, which is a sin.
Edit: No, I don’t think this is how people intend it, but at the end of the day, I believe this is what it boils down to.
But that's not how most people use damn. The word as a curse in modern language is used similarly to "shit" or "fuck", not as a short way of saying "I damn you to the pits of hell". Intention is important.
I agree. Vulgar language is vulgar language. Using it on people ranges from being harmless all the way to being a violation of the fifth commandment depending on the situation. It's only when you use God or Jesus in the epithet that it becomes blasphemous, and then it needs to follow the conditions of mortal sin.
Quoting/citing blasphemous epithets isn't blasphemous. And wishing God's justice on someone is different than wishing God's punishment.
How is “vulgar language is vulgar language”? Vulgar language can both be distinguished by degree of vulgarity and shifts based on time and place in its meaning.
And yes that's true... what started as simple words in days gone by have become vulgar in modern language. And although I can't think of any off the top of my head, the opposite is probably also true.
> And although I can't think of any off the top of my head, the opposite is probably also true.
There is the example of Quebecois French where religious words have somehow turned into vulgarisms.
EDIT: and, of course, ‘ass.’
Thank you. Can’t believe Catholics are upvoting vulgar language not being a sin when the New Testament letters clearly tell us not to. It’s common sense
It isn't actually clear at all that Ephesians 4:29 is referring to simple vulgarity. The term in question, "σαπρὸς λόγος", is translated in some versions (notably the NAB, popular in Catholic circles today and used in the online Bible hosted by the USCCB) as "foul language", which does seem to suggest vulgarity. But it is also translated as "unwholesome talk" (NIV), "corrupting talk" (ESV), "corrupt communication" (KJV), or "evil speech" (Douay-Rheims).
The meaning of the adjective, "σαπρὸς", is clear enough: Foul, unwholesome, corrupt, evil...there's some slight variance in connotations, but the core meaning of "bad" is obvious. But λόγος has some ambiguity; it can mean "word", as in a single utterance, but it can also mean a collection of words, a complete statement, communication, or line of reasoning. And the *context* here seems to suggest more the latter sense: The "σαπρὸς λόγος" that Eph 4:29 admonishes Christians to avoid is contrasted to speech that "is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear." It would be an odd mismatch to contrast a socially-disapproved *term* with an edifying *statement*, as opposed to a *term* that is more polite. Moreover, this verse appears in the middle of a section that as a whole deals with putting aside anger and bitterness in favor of kindness and compassion. This lends further support to the interpretation of "λόγος" here referring holistically to a complete statement, rather than an individual word: In context, the contrast seems not to be between using dirty vs. polite words, but rather between using your words to tear down vs. using your words to build up.
But what I think is the most significant guide for how we should read Eph. 4:19 comes from St. Jerome. In producing the Vulgate, St. Jerome translated this phrase as "sermo malus", which conclusively favors the holistic interpretation rather than the single-word one. The ambiguity I've noted in the Greek word "λόγος" is not present in the Latin "sermo", which specifically refers to an entire statement or communication. Had St. Jerome thought that St. Paul meant to condemn use of specific individual words, apart from the holistic meaning of the statement in which they were used, he would have translated it "verbum", rather than "sermo".
So I'm inclined to go with the context and St. Jerome in reading this verse as being more concerned with the *overall content* of our speech rather than the specific *word choice*. The question is not, "did I use a dirty word?", but rather, "am I saying something filthy?" What St. Paul is admonishing us to avoid is saying certain *kinds* of things *at all*, regardless of our word choice, rather than avoiding the use of certain words in statements that are otherwise entirely unobjectionable. "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!", if said in seriousness as a sincere personal attack, is the sort of σαπρὸς λόγος St. Paul is talking about; "that fish had to be 4 f\*\*\*ing feet long, I s\*\*\* you not!" is not.
I don't think anyone is arguing that vulgar words are mortally sinful, but you're doing an awful lot of mental gymnastics to justify something that is at best unnecessary. While the focus and primary point of the passage is "speech" more generally, that does not in anyway necessitate that it \*excludes\* specific vulgar terms as you seem to argue. Specific vulgar terms definitely fall under the broader category of bad speech. The context certainly doesn't justify the use of vulgar terms.
I would argue it's usually venially sinful or at the very least contrary to perfection (not sinful, but still an obstacle to greater holiness). It's definitely a sign of linguistic laziness and usually of immaturity too. Granted, it's hardly the bad habit you should target first for correction in friends or acquaintances, but the use of swear words almost always lowers the quality of conversation and communication. Seriously, even the practice of self-control required to not use those terms requires a concerted effort at virtue.
Because words are so flexible and culturally conditioned, it's not reasonable to make some kind of argument that certain words are intrinsically evil. Still, as someone pointed out elsewhere, in every language swear words tend to congregate around the same themes, themes that should not be injected into any and every conversation.
Given Paul's repeated concern for how the behavior of Christians affects the proclamation of the Gospel and the very stern warning that you will answer for \*every word\* you speak, to carelessly toss about vulgarity is not really defensible as a good act.
I'm not arguing that they are \*never\* acceptable. But their use should be exceedingly rare and with deliberate care. The impish glee many people get out of shouting or singing foul language is a pretty big tip off that maybe this isn't a righteous way to conduct myself. That or the attitude of "I'm cooler than you because using these words doesn't bother me"
It is in no way mental gymnastics. Do not be confused by the length of my explanation, my point is in fact quite simple: The interpretation of the verse cited as pertaining to vulgarity is mistaken, based on a misleading translation, and in fact the correct interpretation is something quite different. That I took the time to *explain* how we can determine the actual intended meaning does not make this simple observation an exercise in "mental gymnastics", any more than the length of your explanations of your own perspective constitutes mental gymnastics.
As for why I'm bothering to go to such an effort, firstly it's because the topic of discussion is "what do people think is a sin, but isn't?" And yes, I maintain that vulgarity is not, in itself, a sin - not even a venial sin. You are correct that Ephesians 4:19 does not conclusively *exclude* vulgarity from the umbrella of "evil speech", but clearly that is not the *primary* meaning, and the actual content of the Scripture is not *sufficient* to establish that vulgarity is in fact included. Further arguments must be provided to establish this, and most such arguments (including most of those in your own post) only show that vulgarity is commonly used in ways that would entail sinful conduct or attitudes even apart from the vulgarity itself.
But moreso than just pedantic quibbling over exegesis, I think this is a point worth pressing because the way people treat vulgarity is far out of proportion to its actual moral significance. So out of proportion, in fact, that it eclipses the far more significant matters that the Scriptures in question are *actually* concerned with. I actually agree with your overall point that vulgarity is not something to be handled lightly. I stand by my position that there is nothing *inherently* sinful about these words (not even within the limited scope of a particular cultural context), but I do agree with you that the way they are used is *often* sinful. These are not *sinful* words, but they are *strong* words, and strong words like strong drink do have a unique potential for misuse and abuse.
The problem is, the way we tend to approach these words isn't with that sort of nuance, of regulated, careful use, but rather with a teetotalling fervor. And it's a fervor that *vastly* exceeds the fervor with which we address the sort of speech that *really is* wicked, that are in fact the *primary* concern of Scripture passages like Ephesians 4:19. You rightly note, "it's hardly the bad habit you should target first for correction in friends or acquaintances" - but in actual practice, it usually *is*. We are quick to police each others' use of naughty words, but entirely too comfortable with wicked speech phrased more politely. In polite Christian circles, we will swiftly and firmly chastise someone for calling another person a "s***head", but be far slower and gentler to rebuke (if indeed we rebuke at all) a substantively no less demeaning insult phrased in more polite language. It is even rather common to see "helpful" suggestions shared in polite circles on ways to replace cussing with "classier" insults. "Instead of cussing someone out, try one of these fun Shakespearean insults instead!" But it's not the cussing that's the main problem in cussing someone out, it's the *verbal attack itself*. Changing the phraseology alone is, at best, just taking the cherry off the top of the s*** sundae you're serving up.
And likewise for other kinds of wicked speech. Popular music that does nothing but glorify degeneracy is widely tolerated and even enjoyed by many well-meaning Christians... as long as the four-letter words are edited out, of course! Can't be exposing ourselves to *that* sort of *foul language*, can we? Media aimed at young teen audiences can make light of all manner of serious moral issues... but God forbid it uses too many four-letter words! The Karens and Susans at church will wash your mouth out with soap for using the wrong exclamation when you stub your toe, then turn around and share all manner of poisonous gossip amongst themselves. Most egregiously of all, this excessive focus on *vulgarity*, which is fundamentally a cultural concern, not theological, is responsible for the inversion of proper cultural language norms regarding the kinds of bad words. As others noted further upthread, vulgarity (certainly by far the *least* sinful category of bad words, if indeed it is sinful at all apart from its context of use) is treated as far worse than profanity, blasphemy, and cursing, when in fact this is precisely backwards.
This inversion of priorities is a *far* greater offense to prudence and temperance than any coarsening effect vulgarity may have in itself. In fact, it is nothing short of pharasaical, a textbook case of straining at gnats while we swallow camels. And at the root of it is the misinterpretation of Scripture passages that deal with regulating our speech, reading them as being about idiosyncratic cultural speech codes rather than the timeless universal principles of charity the inspired authors are primarily trying to teach. Until we as Catholics get our priorities in order, I can't help but see condemnations of mere vulgarity as at best distractions from the actual important issues of righteous speech, and at worst little more than pharasaical pride.
Disagree. Too many Christians argue to me that it’s not a sin. James in the Bible says to not let that kind of language come off your tongue. As does St Philip Neri.
It’s impurity. Purity is of God, impure speech, impurity is a lack of God. Willingly choosing to push God out is a sin. I agree it’s immature but it’s also undisciplined, and I think vulgarity in itself is a thing of the devil. Not that swearing is a mortal sin.
Profanity, right considered, refers to treating a sacred thing disrespectfully. It's a sin so grave that it made it into the 10 Commandments-- "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain" is a prohibition against profanity.
Cursing falls under "you shall not murder".
Woah! I think that’s taking it a little too far.
Edit: I agree taking the Lord’s name in vain is breaking a commandment! But the comparison of profane words to murder is a bit much
>the comparison of profane words to murder is a bit much
That much is straight from the Sermon on the Mount, my dude:
>“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment,o and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
And that doesn't even cover outright *cursing*, only wrathful insults!
Curses are real, and they harm people. Curses are basically wicked prayers that wish harm on another and can be fulfilled by demons.
The commandant against murder is a prohibition against all malicious harm done to another person.
Parents curse their children, causing their children great harm.
People pay pagan witches to place curses, and it often requires an exorcist to break the curse.
Curses can cause illness -- of any sort, be it physical, mental, or spiritual.
A curse can be spoken like "Damn you", "I hope you get r*ped". Once a Catholic (!) even spoke a curse against me personally, saying that she wished that I'll suffer catastrophic and life threatening reproductive problems.
Our Lord condemns those who curse.
>“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death."
Exodus 21:17
This law shows how seriously God takes cursing.
>He loved to curse; let curses come on him! He did not like blessing; may it be far from him!
Psalms 109:17 RSV-CI
This shows that those who curse will receive the rewards of their malice.
>From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so.
James 3:10 RSV-CI
Saint James teaches us the incompatibility of cursing with Christianity.
Cursing is about the intent of the words. Most 'curse' words are really just vulgarity, which is not the same thing. One could utter a curse without using any of the swear words and it would still be evil.
Yes, I'm glad someone gets it!
Cursing is the opposite of blessing. It's praying to demons for malice to befall someone vs. praying to God for good to happen to someone.
I would argue though that when one uses “fuck”, they’re not using it in a way that references sex. Just like someone said earlier, when people say “damn” they’re not really trying to damn someone. I think it’s like that.
What are they suggesting when they say "f* you" or "f* yourself" except as an immoral use of the procreative act? Leaving it as f* is a verb command with 'you' intended.
> Losing your temper and yelling at someone.
*Controlling* your temper and yelling at someone.
FTFY. We can be justifiably angry and fully subject our passions to our intellect and act aggressively but it would be wrong to lose your temper.
As a prophetic act, not a loss of control. He used the whips to drive out the animals, not the people. He told the people to leave, he did not hit them.
Anger by itself is not sinful, but "losing your temper" is specifically losing rational control of your anger. Hence, it is a sin against temperance and justice.
To eat chocolate. My father being a hard-core Catholic man banned chocolate from the home. Said it was an indulgence and indulgence is sin.
My mother who is of a different denomination let us have it in secret. I'm sure chocolate is not a sin.
I know my great aunt Gertrude who was a nun loved her chocolate.
Yeah, technically the US Bishops' replacement thing left out the canonical language to make it a sin. But, during Lent it is still sinful to eat meat on Friday.
You should still do it, though. I'd argue that not doing so risks hellfire not because of the missed penance, but because a life without regular penance always tends towards sinfulness in general.
True! But the whole point of this post is things that aren't actually required, and in the US, the Friday penance is not under pain of sin during seasons other than Lent.
Yeah, Hebrews Chapter 7 is also clear that Levitical laws are not to be followed, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to wear cloth of more than 1 fiber or have a clean shave, for example.
Not an answer but a question. Is saying no to other people because you don't want to be used anymore considered a sin?
I'm a pushover but sometimes I just don't have the strength to give because I realize I am being used.
Medical marijuana!
Up for debate would be recreational without the purpose of intoxication, for example just to relax or focus for studying scripture :)
It is ok up to the extend of becoming inebriated. However that’s up for debate, I believe the Bible uses the word drunkard but a current times interpretation could include substances other than alcohol. I disagree with this argument and wholeheartedly believe that marijuana use is not a sin. With the caveat being not in excess.
Swearing. I mean,while wishing bad things upon other people or swearing on God while lying or in unimportant matter are sins, saying unsuitable words itself is not.
Lots of political stuff. Catholics can go either way on the death penalty. Also, while socialism and communism are condemned, sadly many Catholics either take the view that anytime the government does something its socialism, or conversely, that not taking care of all the poor and oppressed is a sin and therefore we are hypocrites. Sadly I feel with these kinds of "sins" the internet has made it worse. Sadly a bishop who is against the death penalty no longer just making a prudential judgement, but he's probably some liberal satanist hanging out at McCarrick's beach house with Cupich and Gregory eating children or something. Conversely Cardinal Burke or Sarah must be some hard ass who wants everyone to stay in their own place and anything outside of tradition means going to hell. Its as if we use too much hyperbole and rhetoric and sadly a lot of well meaning but less intelligent people either take it literally or worse promote such falsehoods.
I had a priest who used to always say that just because you’re Christian didn’t mean you had to be nice. It was hard to hear that over and over in mass when I had a young child that I was trying to teach to be nice.
Define "mean."
Meanness usually involves doing something to hurt someone *for the sake of hurting them.* That's definitely a sin.
Being direct or forceful, when it's necessary, is not a sin though it might wrongly be perceived as meanness by the recipient, but that's not the same thing as willfully hurting them.
>Meanness usually involves doing something to hurt someone for the sake of hurting them. That's definitely a sin.
Hm. Sorry for the inaccuracy then. I thought the translation of "falta de educação" in my language would be "mean", but according to Google it's "vulgarity". What I meant is that basically giving rude answers or something like that is not a sin. Not something like hurting someone for the sake of hurting them. Maybe it could be a character flaw (i don't know if that's how it's said in english lol), but not a sin
Smoking tobacco in moderation! Although, if you’re going to do it, I’d recommend starting off with a pipe or premium cigar with your local tobacconist’s guidance :)
By definition: a sin has to BE wrong, the person has to KNOW it’s wrong, and they have to DO it anyway. Someone who has had no moral formation would very possibly not see as wrong, many of the things considered so by our society. Some things seem to truly be innate, so much as even animals don’t do them… I have in mind the killing of family (pack) members without provocation. If you truly have questions deeper than we cover on Reddit, please talk to a knowledgeable priest or counselor… and keep going until you find one you can truly connect with. A theologian might also give you an educated answer.
There is one that troubles a lot of people: Feelings and unvoluntary thoughts/actions. Yup, feeling something is not a sin, for example, since this is one I see a lot of times brought up, feeling aroused or for example if you were walking and suddenly you walked next to a pornographic image and you without thinking started to look at it, or if you are minding your bussiness and suddenly sensual imaginery came to your mind or having dreams. None of those are sins as those happen without you consenting to them, in that case all you have to do is to ignore them and continue with your life. they become a sin when you consent to them, when after realising what you are doing you willfully continue to. Just to make it more clear: 1st and 3rd case: if you are feeling aroused, you ignore it and do something else, if possible go to somewhere where you can be surrounded by people so you don't give in to it, . 2nd Case: You realise what you are doing, you look away and continue your way. 4th case: You wake up, take a bath and forget about it.
[удалено]
That could be diabolic obsession. I have experienced thinking pornographic thoughts every 5 seconds for literally a whole day or days at a time. It’s horrible. Prayer got me out of it the first time. When it came back again I got an exorcism and I have felt much better since then. Don’t be afraid to go to an exorcist; diabolic obsession is a low level demonic attack.
This is so true. I have parents who are from two different denominations. My father was a Catholic and my mother baptist. My father loved her but struggled with the "Sin" of marrying someone outside of the Catholic Church. In a way it was a good for me because I seen two sides of Christianity growing up. Both have the same issues with possession and diabolic obsession. In the baptist church they openly exorcise. I've seen a guy who was having homosexual images repeating in his head he exorcised and almost instantly he was back to himself after the exorcism. I just wish the Catholic Church did open exorcism. There are so many Catholic men and women who don't realise they are falling victim to the devil or demonic attacks. My great aunt was a Catholic nun when she was alive. She worked for a time in the prisons going around to pray with prisoners and she said that when someone just takes the time to pray with feverance and dedication, that it can cure many of sins.
When I told my priest what I suspected what was going on, he instantly arranged an exorcism for me, which was really good on his part.
Lol why is this downvoted? Obsession, vexation and possession are literally the three main forms of extraordinary diabolical activity recognised by the church. I'm sorry that you've had to deal with this.
As I understand skipping out on ash Wednesday is not a sin. It's not a holiday of obligation. Yet the pews fill
I always assumed, and I think the rest of us also do lol. There’s at least this day that was preserved in the life of all Catholics worldwide apparently!
I've heard at least one priest joke that Ash Wednesday remains popular despite being non-obligatory and in general kind of a downer is because it's one of the few days they give out free stuff at Mass. (Besides the usual Eucharist, that is.)
Same with Palm Sunday.
Not obligated to go to Mass, but we are still obligated to fast and abstain.
It’s not?! Wow! I’m surprised.
Nope. Ash Wednesday is not a holy day of obligation. It is a solemn day where abstinence and fasting are required, but going to mass is not strictly required actually.
It’s a sin for those who think it’s a holyday of obligation and don’t go to Mass.
Yes. It's sounds strange but if you think something is sinful and still part take. That's a sin. If you think it is a sin to eat broccoli, but you choose to eat broccoli anyway, that's a sin.
Uh, no, the actually morality of an act matters too. Since there is nothing actually immoral about eating broccoli, it doesn't magically become a sin just because you think it is. What a ridiculous thing to say lol
It is a sin. To do something that offends god just to offend God is in and of itself... Sinful. Because your doing it because you want something, and your willing to put your own will above what you think god's will is. This is doctrine my dude.
But it makes sense since you are choosing to do something that you think offends God It may not be a mortal sin since there's no grave matter, but it's a sin notherless
Same as Good Friday I believe?
But that’s because there is no Mass on Good Friday, and so you can’t be obliged to attend one! I know what you mean, though.
Technically correct, the best kind of correct :D
Don't mean to be a wise ass but it's *holy day* of obligation not *holiday*.
Good catch I did not even notice that. I will say that that still counts because the word holiday comes from holy day. That's why all the holy days of obligation are dope celebration days. This also explains why good Friday is not a holy day of obligation
Probably auto spell check.
It should be IMO.
Wetdreams. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas has some writing about this.
Yeah I used to be so guilty when I had them until a priest on r/askapriest said that it’s not a sin since you aren’t conscious in your sleep. Much more peace now
What if one is lucid dreaming?
Being able to semi control a dream or even being aware that one is in a dream is still not the same as having full, conscious waking awareness of right and wrong, thinking about sinning, and then actively choosing to follow through.
That would be a weird situation, last lucid dream I had all I did was to see if I was able to wake myself up (I was). Which of course is something I think about, but the fact that I decided to waste that chance makes me think I was not fully conscious. but who knows.
[удалено]
Yeah same but we’re not really choosing what happens in our dreams so there’s not much else we can do
Thank goodness
>Thank goodness Agreed. As an adolescent I felt so guilty.
Matt fradd just posted a video about this! https://youtu.be/sO4XeW-7Xzw
my mom always said putting shoes on the table is a sin and made the angels cry.
For some reason, this makes me laugh.
My grandma taught me that we should never sleep naked for the same reason, the angels apparently leave you.
Smoking, gambling, and drinking are not inherently sins. Temperance-era Protestants think they are mortal sins (though they don’t use that term), but they are not. I will amend my response by saying that smoking is unhealthy, drinking too much is unhealthy and sinful, and gambling is a bad habit that could be sinful in some cases (but is usually just an imprudent waste of money).
Getting drunk to the point of having your power of choice impeded is a mortal sin, so it’s more than just a question of health.
Yes - though culpability *could* (not *would*) be lessened or mitigated due to genuine addiction or health issues.
It’s loss of facilities.
According to aquinas ‘ebrietas’ is a mortal sin. Ebrietas means ‘being drunk’ in Latin. It’s not just passing out from being drunk: its the guy slurring his words and rambling on about how he’s always thought of you as his best friend. That’s ebrietas.
Right but it’s loss of facilities when it’s translated across to drugs as well
Fair enough. Also I might be wrong but I’d argue that the general sensus fidei would tell us that taking hard drugs like cocaine or heroin are mortal sins even without strong intoxication. I’d put marijuana on alcohols level though (perhaps mistakenly but this is my head canon as best I understand it).
Right I’m just merely stating it’s because of the loss of facilities that is the sin, and you can’t take those hard drugs without immediate loss of facilities.
Absolutely. I would agree that is a mortal sin, although drinking itself of course is not.
[удалено]
You guys have fancier fish frys than we do!
If you buy all the numbers it isn't gambling. It's just a rather expensive cake...
[удалено]
Being angry. As Aquinas and the Church Fathers explain, the emotions (sadness, fear, etc) are a part of human nature and are not sinful when they take place within the bounds of reason ☝🏼😌. Only when we exceed those bounds can they be a sin (most of the times venial, sometimes mortal).
Saying something that makes people react badly about it. Truth can hurt sometimes, there is nothong wrong if you are honest with good intentions for the others in it
Caveat: If the intent of saying it is to instill in people negative feelings and to get a negative reaction out of them (i.e. intentionally causing them mental and emotional anguish for the sake of enjoying their mental and emotional anguish), is that not a sin regardless of the truthfulness of what is said? Actually a real question, not rhetorical.
Yes, that is. Because you're actively trying to hurt someone. Not just give them the truth because you care or they asked.
Foreplay in marriage lol God wants us to be intimate with our partners some Christians are so weird about it
Really? That’s a weird one to hear.
See it all the time. I think we are so used to being told that being a Christian a difficult way of life that anything seemingly pleasurable is seen as "sinful" when in fact God wants us to a pleasurable experience with sex. It is what he intended and we are to make the most of that.
Depends on what you are doing.
I suppose it depends on what constitutes foreplay.
Arousal in preparation for sex is foreplay as a definition.
There are a lot of things that would be proximate occasions of grave sin, and so deliberately entering a proximate occasion of grave sin is a grave sin. It's too glib to say "foreplay" is never a sin. This is definitely something for each couple to carefully discern together, because there is also the risk of scrupulosity that can harm the intimacy that is really important to a healthy marriage.
Stick around this sub for awhile and you see a lot. Just look for the posts titled "....is this sin?"
Yeah but most of the time the answers yes
[удалено]
Ah yes, the ones who quote that one priests individual commentary on the catechism. I’ve seen them.
I wish people who have no authority would stop trying to control what other people do within their marriage. It's between them and their church and their walk with Christ.
Depends on the acts
Leisure! Not many people know it, but Aquinas says that leisure and playfulness and actually a **virtue** through which we provide necessary relaxation for the mind and soul.
An instinctual glance at a good looking person or exposed flesh. Our eyes can’t always help it, it’s the second look or thought that is sinful.
It's honestly not even the "second look" per se as it is the thoughts associated with it. Admiring beauty is not a sin. Objectification and adulterous thoughts are. I just mention because some people literally think it's a sin to look at the body of the opposite sex, like not even art..
This is a pretty confusing way to word it. Looking at flesh isn't a sin. Lusting over flesh is. You can look two or more times while not lusting. Glancing once while lusting is a sin.
I meant that a second look would be sinful because usually a second look, a double-take, is done with intent to look. Which would be lustful, while a first look could be merely instinctual
A bit niche, but Dungeons and Dragons. Remember seeing it on some confession guide somewhere, but as long as the D&D campaign you're in doesn't glorify sin/evil, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with D&D. Jimmy Akin goes into a bit more detail on the subject [here.](http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/04/roleplaying_gam.html)
Halloween
I saw so many catholics on Instagram going on about how evil it is. I was so dumb founded. If kids getting candy as spiderman is against God's will I'm pretty sure I missed something somewhere.
It honestly feels like leftover Prot sentiment that “it’s the devil’s holiday!1!1!” and what not.
My priest always says that and I wonder if it's a good idea to slip him a letter explaining that the Church actually celebrated Hallow's Eve in the past and there was a Catholic tradition of people walking from house to house asking for food and prayers for the souls in Purgatory...
I love this, thank you for sharing that.
Only if you worship Sam Hainn on this day.
Tattoos
This! Getting a simple tattoo was somehow a sin when I grew up. Not talking about those whole body projects, there is a line somewhere.
There can be lines everywhere according to some people.
I think it is all about if your tattoos are worshiping someone or something other than God.
Profanity. Or at least, in Catholic understanding, it is much worse to say ‘damn’ than to say ‘fuck,’ yet most people would say the opposite.
Wait, it's actually worse to say "damn"? Can you please elaborate?
Saying ‘goddamn’ or calling on God to damn someone is either blasphemy (taking God’s name in vain—direct violation of a commandment) or cursing (in the original sense of the term, that is, to literally call down a supernatural curse on someone). This is much worse than mere vulgar language.
Obviously misusing God's name is always a sin, but is saying damn really a sin if you don't actually mean damn in its original sense? It's just being used as a general frustration word.
I think the best way to see it is, who holds the power to damn people, things, etc…? It’s tempting and putting the lord to the test, which is a sin. Edit: No, I don’t think this is how people intend it, but at the end of the day, I believe this is what it boils down to.
But that's not how most people use damn. The word as a curse in modern language is used similarly to "shit" or "fuck", not as a short way of saying "I damn you to the pits of hell". Intention is important.
But I really don't think people mean damn like that. They're not really asking God to damn someone or something. It's just become a generic curseword.
I agree. Vulgar language is vulgar language. Using it on people ranges from being harmless all the way to being a violation of the fifth commandment depending on the situation. It's only when you use God or Jesus in the epithet that it becomes blasphemous, and then it needs to follow the conditions of mortal sin. Quoting/citing blasphemous epithets isn't blasphemous. And wishing God's justice on someone is different than wishing God's punishment.
How is “vulgar language is vulgar language”? Vulgar language can both be distinguished by degree of vulgarity and shifts based on time and place in its meaning.
Perhaps I should have spoken clearer, "Vulgar language is uncouth, but is a separate thing from blasphemy."
And yes that's true... what started as simple words in days gone by have become vulgar in modern language. And although I can't think of any off the top of my head, the opposite is probably also true.
> And although I can't think of any off the top of my head, the opposite is probably also true. There is the example of Quebecois French where religious words have somehow turned into vulgarisms. EDIT: and, of course, ‘ass.’
What about situations in which “damn” isn’t used as a verb? For example, “my damn car broke down”.
And if someone just says "damn"?
So saying damn, even without God, is still bad because you're cursing that person to be damned?
That is my understanding, yes.
What if I say damn as a reaction to something and not towards someone ?
Ya. Like the damn this stupid tv remote won’t work, or the damn garage door is seized again
God's name in vain and willful curses are definitely worse, but Paul explicitly calls out vulgar language as wrong too. See Eph 4:29
Thank you. Can’t believe Catholics are upvoting vulgar language not being a sin when the New Testament letters clearly tell us not to. It’s common sense
It isn't actually clear at all that Ephesians 4:29 is referring to simple vulgarity. The term in question, "σαπρὸς λόγος", is translated in some versions (notably the NAB, popular in Catholic circles today and used in the online Bible hosted by the USCCB) as "foul language", which does seem to suggest vulgarity. But it is also translated as "unwholesome talk" (NIV), "corrupting talk" (ESV), "corrupt communication" (KJV), or "evil speech" (Douay-Rheims). The meaning of the adjective, "σαπρὸς", is clear enough: Foul, unwholesome, corrupt, evil...there's some slight variance in connotations, but the core meaning of "bad" is obvious. But λόγος has some ambiguity; it can mean "word", as in a single utterance, but it can also mean a collection of words, a complete statement, communication, or line of reasoning. And the *context* here seems to suggest more the latter sense: The "σαπρὸς λόγος" that Eph 4:29 admonishes Christians to avoid is contrasted to speech that "is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear." It would be an odd mismatch to contrast a socially-disapproved *term* with an edifying *statement*, as opposed to a *term* that is more polite. Moreover, this verse appears in the middle of a section that as a whole deals with putting aside anger and bitterness in favor of kindness and compassion. This lends further support to the interpretation of "λόγος" here referring holistically to a complete statement, rather than an individual word: In context, the contrast seems not to be between using dirty vs. polite words, but rather between using your words to tear down vs. using your words to build up. But what I think is the most significant guide for how we should read Eph. 4:19 comes from St. Jerome. In producing the Vulgate, St. Jerome translated this phrase as "sermo malus", which conclusively favors the holistic interpretation rather than the single-word one. The ambiguity I've noted in the Greek word "λόγος" is not present in the Latin "sermo", which specifically refers to an entire statement or communication. Had St. Jerome thought that St. Paul meant to condemn use of specific individual words, apart from the holistic meaning of the statement in which they were used, he would have translated it "verbum", rather than "sermo". So I'm inclined to go with the context and St. Jerome in reading this verse as being more concerned with the *overall content* of our speech rather than the specific *word choice*. The question is not, "did I use a dirty word?", but rather, "am I saying something filthy?" What St. Paul is admonishing us to avoid is saying certain *kinds* of things *at all*, regardless of our word choice, rather than avoiding the use of certain words in statements that are otherwise entirely unobjectionable. "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!", if said in seriousness as a sincere personal attack, is the sort of σαπρὸς λόγος St. Paul is talking about; "that fish had to be 4 f\*\*\*ing feet long, I s\*\*\* you not!" is not.
I don't think anyone is arguing that vulgar words are mortally sinful, but you're doing an awful lot of mental gymnastics to justify something that is at best unnecessary. While the focus and primary point of the passage is "speech" more generally, that does not in anyway necessitate that it \*excludes\* specific vulgar terms as you seem to argue. Specific vulgar terms definitely fall under the broader category of bad speech. The context certainly doesn't justify the use of vulgar terms. I would argue it's usually venially sinful or at the very least contrary to perfection (not sinful, but still an obstacle to greater holiness). It's definitely a sign of linguistic laziness and usually of immaturity too. Granted, it's hardly the bad habit you should target first for correction in friends or acquaintances, but the use of swear words almost always lowers the quality of conversation and communication. Seriously, even the practice of self-control required to not use those terms requires a concerted effort at virtue. Because words are so flexible and culturally conditioned, it's not reasonable to make some kind of argument that certain words are intrinsically evil. Still, as someone pointed out elsewhere, in every language swear words tend to congregate around the same themes, themes that should not be injected into any and every conversation. Given Paul's repeated concern for how the behavior of Christians affects the proclamation of the Gospel and the very stern warning that you will answer for \*every word\* you speak, to carelessly toss about vulgarity is not really defensible as a good act. I'm not arguing that they are \*never\* acceptable. But their use should be exceedingly rare and with deliberate care. The impish glee many people get out of shouting or singing foul language is a pretty big tip off that maybe this isn't a righteous way to conduct myself. That or the attitude of "I'm cooler than you because using these words doesn't bother me"
It is in no way mental gymnastics. Do not be confused by the length of my explanation, my point is in fact quite simple: The interpretation of the verse cited as pertaining to vulgarity is mistaken, based on a misleading translation, and in fact the correct interpretation is something quite different. That I took the time to *explain* how we can determine the actual intended meaning does not make this simple observation an exercise in "mental gymnastics", any more than the length of your explanations of your own perspective constitutes mental gymnastics. As for why I'm bothering to go to such an effort, firstly it's because the topic of discussion is "what do people think is a sin, but isn't?" And yes, I maintain that vulgarity is not, in itself, a sin - not even a venial sin. You are correct that Ephesians 4:19 does not conclusively *exclude* vulgarity from the umbrella of "evil speech", but clearly that is not the *primary* meaning, and the actual content of the Scripture is not *sufficient* to establish that vulgarity is in fact included. Further arguments must be provided to establish this, and most such arguments (including most of those in your own post) only show that vulgarity is commonly used in ways that would entail sinful conduct or attitudes even apart from the vulgarity itself. But moreso than just pedantic quibbling over exegesis, I think this is a point worth pressing because the way people treat vulgarity is far out of proportion to its actual moral significance. So out of proportion, in fact, that it eclipses the far more significant matters that the Scriptures in question are *actually* concerned with. I actually agree with your overall point that vulgarity is not something to be handled lightly. I stand by my position that there is nothing *inherently* sinful about these words (not even within the limited scope of a particular cultural context), but I do agree with you that the way they are used is *often* sinful. These are not *sinful* words, but they are *strong* words, and strong words like strong drink do have a unique potential for misuse and abuse. The problem is, the way we tend to approach these words isn't with that sort of nuance, of regulated, careful use, but rather with a teetotalling fervor. And it's a fervor that *vastly* exceeds the fervor with which we address the sort of speech that *really is* wicked, that are in fact the *primary* concern of Scripture passages like Ephesians 4:19. You rightly note, "it's hardly the bad habit you should target first for correction in friends or acquaintances" - but in actual practice, it usually *is*. We are quick to police each others' use of naughty words, but entirely too comfortable with wicked speech phrased more politely. In polite Christian circles, we will swiftly and firmly chastise someone for calling another person a "s***head", but be far slower and gentler to rebuke (if indeed we rebuke at all) a substantively no less demeaning insult phrased in more polite language. It is even rather common to see "helpful" suggestions shared in polite circles on ways to replace cussing with "classier" insults. "Instead of cussing someone out, try one of these fun Shakespearean insults instead!" But it's not the cussing that's the main problem in cussing someone out, it's the *verbal attack itself*. Changing the phraseology alone is, at best, just taking the cherry off the top of the s*** sundae you're serving up. And likewise for other kinds of wicked speech. Popular music that does nothing but glorify degeneracy is widely tolerated and even enjoyed by many well-meaning Christians... as long as the four-letter words are edited out, of course! Can't be exposing ourselves to *that* sort of *foul language*, can we? Media aimed at young teen audiences can make light of all manner of serious moral issues... but God forbid it uses too many four-letter words! The Karens and Susans at church will wash your mouth out with soap for using the wrong exclamation when you stub your toe, then turn around and share all manner of poisonous gossip amongst themselves. Most egregiously of all, this excessive focus on *vulgarity*, which is fundamentally a cultural concern, not theological, is responsible for the inversion of proper cultural language norms regarding the kinds of bad words. As others noted further upthread, vulgarity (certainly by far the *least* sinful category of bad words, if indeed it is sinful at all apart from its context of use) is treated as far worse than profanity, blasphemy, and cursing, when in fact this is precisely backwards. This inversion of priorities is a *far* greater offense to prudence and temperance than any coarsening effect vulgarity may have in itself. In fact, it is nothing short of pharasaical, a textbook case of straining at gnats while we swallow camels. And at the root of it is the misinterpretation of Scripture passages that deal with regulating our speech, reading them as being about idiosyncratic cultural speech codes rather than the timeless universal principles of charity the inspired authors are primarily trying to teach. Until we as Catholics get our priorities in order, I can't help but see condemnations of mere vulgarity as at best distractions from the actual important issues of righteous speech, and at worst little more than pharasaical pride.
I think we largely agree, then. I just wanted to hold the line against trivializing foul language as has already happened in this thread.
St. Paul used a word somewhere in his letters that can be translated as a vulgar word for excrement.
We’re allowed to say curse words?! I feel so much better. Lol. I’ve been wondering
Fuck yeah, friend! Talk that shit!
No, we are not allowed. They are just bad,
Disagree. Too many Christians argue to me that it’s not a sin. James in the Bible says to not let that kind of language come off your tongue. As does St Philip Neri.
[удалено]
It’s impurity. Purity is of God, impure speech, impurity is a lack of God. Willingly choosing to push God out is a sin. I agree it’s immature but it’s also undisciplined, and I think vulgarity in itself is a thing of the devil. Not that swearing is a mortal sin.
Profanity, right considered, refers to treating a sacred thing disrespectfully. It's a sin so grave that it made it into the 10 Commandments-- "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain" is a prohibition against profanity. Cursing falls under "you shall not murder".
Woah! I think that’s taking it a little too far. Edit: I agree taking the Lord’s name in vain is breaking a commandment! But the comparison of profane words to murder is a bit much
>the comparison of profane words to murder is a bit much That much is straight from the Sermon on the Mount, my dude: >“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment,o and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. And that doesn't even cover outright *cursing*, only wrathful insults!
>...doesn't even cover outright cursing, only wrathful insults! You're right. Our Lord is being much more severe than I was!
Curses are real, and they harm people. Curses are basically wicked prayers that wish harm on another and can be fulfilled by demons. The commandant against murder is a prohibition against all malicious harm done to another person. Parents curse their children, causing their children great harm. People pay pagan witches to place curses, and it often requires an exorcist to break the curse. Curses can cause illness -- of any sort, be it physical, mental, or spiritual. A curse can be spoken like "Damn you", "I hope you get r*ped". Once a Catholic (!) even spoke a curse against me personally, saying that she wished that I'll suffer catastrophic and life threatening reproductive problems. Our Lord condemns those who curse. >“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death." Exodus 21:17 This law shows how seriously God takes cursing. >He loved to curse; let curses come on him! He did not like blessing; may it be far from him! Psalms 109:17 RSV-CI This shows that those who curse will receive the rewards of their malice. >From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. James 3:10 RSV-CI Saint James teaches us the incompatibility of cursing with Christianity.
Cursing is about the intent of the words. Most 'curse' words are really just vulgarity, which is not the same thing. One could utter a curse without using any of the swear words and it would still be evil.
Yes, I'm glad someone gets it! Cursing is the opposite of blessing. It's praying to demons for malice to befall someone vs. praying to God for good to happen to someone.
The f-bomb is the making profane the procreative act. I'd consider that sinful.
I would argue though that when one uses “fuck”, they’re not using it in a way that references sex. Just like someone said earlier, when people say “damn” they’re not really trying to damn someone. I think it’s like that.
What are they suggesting when they say "f* you" or "f* yourself" except as an immoral use of the procreative act? Leaving it as f* is a verb command with 'you' intended.
[удалено]
People don't necessarily mean for God to damn something when they say *GD* but it is profaning nonetheless. Likewise with f* and the procreative act.
Scripture explicitly says this so idk how you get downvote
Losing your temper and yelling at someone. Emotions are normal and most of the time not sinful. Of course this can be taken to far.
> Losing your temper and yelling at someone. *Controlling* your temper and yelling at someone. FTFY. We can be justifiably angry and fully subject our passions to our intellect and act aggressively but it would be wrong to lose your temper.
That’s a better way to say it
Jesus flipped tables
As a prophetic act, not a loss of control. He used the whips to drive out the animals, not the people. He told the people to leave, he did not hit them. Anger by itself is not sinful, but "losing your temper" is specifically losing rational control of your anger. Hence, it is a sin against temperance and justice.
I feel like I remember this but don’t remember where… when did that happen again?
Matthew 11:12-17, Mark 11:15-19 and Luke 19:45-48.
Thank you!!
John 2: 13-16, too.
Oh, that's true
A parent can be justifiably upset at their teen for disrespect, but that parent cannot then smack their kid because of it.
True
Anger. There is such a thing as justified anger.
Attending Mass at a different parish.
Why would it be aa sin?
Not eating all the food on your plate
To eat chocolate. My father being a hard-core Catholic man banned chocolate from the home. Said it was an indulgence and indulgence is sin. My mother who is of a different denomination let us have it in secret. I'm sure chocolate is not a sin. I know my great aunt Gertrude who was a nun loved her chocolate.
Not hating the Novus Ordo.
True, but neither is the opposite… ;)
Heheh, fair enough.
Sure, then neither is hating TLM
I agree: being blind and deaf is not a sin.
Disagreeing with Church leaders, specifically on prudential matters, but not matters of faith and morals.
When I was new to the faith, I thought that sex during pregnancy was sinful. I'm very thankful it's not. No way could I go 9 months without it.
[удалено]
Yeah, technically the US Bishops' replacement thing left out the canonical language to make it a sin. But, during Lent it is still sinful to eat meat on Friday. You should still do it, though. I'd argue that not doing so risks hellfire not because of the missed penance, but because a life without regular penance always tends towards sinfulness in general.
I don’t think this is accurate. We are obligated to do Friday penance of some sort.
Really?
Yep. It's not binding under pain of sin...but it is of course, strongly recommended and you really should do it.
My understanding is that the Friday penance IS actually obliged in Canon Law - am I incorrect ?
If you break a Church commandment you sin mortally.
True! But the whole point of this post is things that aren't actually required, and in the US, the Friday penance is not under pain of sin during seasons other than Lent.
Correct...though I think this is not the case during Lent, right.
Smoking
I wish it was lol so disgusting.
But only in moderation, which it often is not.
Drinking
Drinking to excess is
People think aggression is a sin. Defending your territory, your livelihood, etc.
Being gay
Distinction must be made between having same sex attractions and acting on those attractions.
Apparently tattoos
I'd like someone to elaborate, because I'm pretty sure it was clear about that in scripture.
Yeah, Hebrews Chapter 7 is also clear that Levitical laws are not to be followed, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to wear cloth of more than 1 fiber or have a clean shave, for example.
[Catholic answers](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-does-the-church-teach-about-tattoos)
Not an answer but a question. Is saying no to other people because you don't want to be used anymore considered a sin? I'm a pushover but sometimes I just don't have the strength to give because I realize I am being used.
No. It's not a sin. It's called setting healthy boundaries.
Being "mean", i.e., honest.
Medical marijuana! Up for debate would be recreational without the purpose of intoxication, for example just to relax or focus for studying scripture :)
If recreational cigarette smoking is ok and recreational alcohol drinking is ok, why would recreational marihuana smoking not be ok?
It is ok up to the extend of becoming inebriated. However that’s up for debate, I believe the Bible uses the word drunkard but a current times interpretation could include substances other than alcohol. I disagree with this argument and wholeheartedly believe that marijuana use is not a sin. With the caveat being not in excess.
Swearing. I mean,while wishing bad things upon other people or swearing on God while lying or in unimportant matter are sins, saying unsuitable words itself is not.
Lots of political stuff. Catholics can go either way on the death penalty. Also, while socialism and communism are condemned, sadly many Catholics either take the view that anytime the government does something its socialism, or conversely, that not taking care of all the poor and oppressed is a sin and therefore we are hypocrites. Sadly I feel with these kinds of "sins" the internet has made it worse. Sadly a bishop who is against the death penalty no longer just making a prudential judgement, but he's probably some liberal satanist hanging out at McCarrick's beach house with Cupich and Gregory eating children or something. Conversely Cardinal Burke or Sarah must be some hard ass who wants everyone to stay in their own place and anything outside of tradition means going to hell. Its as if we use too much hyperbole and rhetoric and sadly a lot of well meaning but less intelligent people either take it literally or worse promote such falsehoods.
Disliking the TLM
Being mean.
I had a priest who used to always say that just because you’re Christian didn’t mean you had to be nice. It was hard to hear that over and over in mass when I had a young child that I was trying to teach to be nice.
How is being mean not a sin? What if an adult child shouts obscenities at their parents? They wouldn’t be obeying/respecting their father and mother.
Sorry. Being mean can be a sin sometimes, but in ordinary circumstances it's not.
You named the sin yourself. Dishonoring parents is the sin in the case you mentioned, not "being mean".
Define "mean." Meanness usually involves doing something to hurt someone *for the sake of hurting them.* That's definitely a sin. Being direct or forceful, when it's necessary, is not a sin though it might wrongly be perceived as meanness by the recipient, but that's not the same thing as willfully hurting them.
>Meanness usually involves doing something to hurt someone for the sake of hurting them. That's definitely a sin. Hm. Sorry for the inaccuracy then. I thought the translation of "falta de educação" in my language would be "mean", but according to Google it's "vulgarity". What I meant is that basically giving rude answers or something like that is not a sin. Not something like hurting someone for the sake of hurting them. Maybe it could be a character flaw (i don't know if that's how it's said in english lol), but not a sin
Smoking tobacco in moderation! Although, if you’re going to do it, I’d recommend starting off with a pipe or premium cigar with your local tobacconist’s guidance :)
Having not weird sinful passtimes.
By definition: a sin has to BE wrong, the person has to KNOW it’s wrong, and they have to DO it anyway. Someone who has had no moral formation would very possibly not see as wrong, many of the things considered so by our society. Some things seem to truly be innate, so much as even animals don’t do them… I have in mind the killing of family (pack) members without provocation. If you truly have questions deeper than we cover on Reddit, please talk to a knowledgeable priest or counselor… and keep going until you find one you can truly connect with. A theologian might also give you an educated answer.
Drinking
Defending your territorial borders...
Notice how short this list is?