Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Reintroducing Logic and Reason to the Age of Sentimentalism

Mortal Sin

All of the posts under the "Mortal Sin" category.

You Have a Moral Duty To Vote Trump and Defeat Hillary Clinton

With the election looming only three short weeks away, we are hearing more and more Catholics and conservatives talking about something that seems rather absurd; voting for a third party candidate.

Photo taken by Gage Skidmore

Photo taken by Gage Skidmore

Why would I call this idea absurd? Simply put, we have Hillary Clinton, the most radical, pro-abortion candidate to ever run for President in this country as the front-runner of this race, according to polls released thus far.

Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance of winning this election, whether through honesty or rigged elections. The only other candidate who has an excellent chance of winning this election is Donald Trump, a man who has proposed giving us pro-life Supreme Court justices, willing to defend the 2nd Amendment, and many other pro-family values. He has also written a sincere letter to Catholics discussing the importance Catholics have had in building this country and how he will fight for our religious freedom.

No matter what your argument may be in Donald Trump not being “the best man for the job” there is a near zero chance of a third party candidate winning this election. Unless you can convince 60 million people to vote for said candidate in the next 20 days, you are throwing your vote away and allowing Hillary to walk away with this election.

In the third Presidential debate, Hillary admitted that she would put justices on the court that will make abortion legal for all nine months, up until the day the baby is ready to be born. If you are pro-life in the slightest, the very thought of this should leave you appalled, and this should send shivers down your spine. Babies who are ready to be born will die under this woman.

abort baby

But what I have discovered is that it almost appears to me that the Catholic “pro-life” Church in America might want Hillary to win. I have seen numerous Bishops (Archbishop Chaput for example), come out against both candidates, treating Donald Trump as bad, if not worse, than the most radically pro-abortion candidate in the history of this country, a woman who admires Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

In 2008, we were told that we couldn’t vote for Obama, but we had to vote for McCain.

In 2012, we were told that we couldn’t vote for Obama, but we had to vote for Romney.

Both of these men were known as soft Republicans who had no interest in running a pro-life platform, except for those pesky six months before the election. Romney ran all of his previous election campaigns for various offices under a pro-choice position. “Well, he is from Massachusetts, but he was pro-life.” McCain was another soft Republican who never did much for the pro-life platform. But with both of these candidates, we were told that we had to stop Obama because of his staunch pro-abortion stance.

Apparently, that isn’t the case anymore now that Hillary is the nominee.

In 2016 we are told to vote our conscience even though Trump has done far more than either McCain or Romney ever had with pro-lifers or Catholics. Trump has given us a list of 20 Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Constitution, and overturn Roe V. Wade when given a chance. But apparently, when push comes to shove, it’s easier to claim to be pro-life when it makes one look like a good Catholic than to actually put those principles into practice.

Catholics and every single person on this planet have a moral duty to stop evil. But all I see Catholics doing is getting up on their high horses, puffing out their chests, and pretending that they are so high and mighty by ignoring Trump and allowing Hillary to walk away with this election, all because they voted their “conscience.”

As Pope St. John Paul II says in Christifideles Laici:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture-is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The USCCB, in their document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship write:

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

Pope Pius XII, in his March 16, 1946, letter to the Pastors and Lenten Preachers of Rome, wrote:

The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is the question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitutions and its laws, particularly those which effect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school, the various phases of social life. It therefore falls to the Church to explain to the faithful their moral duties which derive from their right to vote.

Again, two years later, Pope Pius XII strictly commands:

It is your right and duty to draw the attention of the faithful to the extraordinary importance of the coming elections and to the moral responsibility which follows from it for those who have the right to vote. In the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or cowardice, commits thereby a grave sin, a mortal offense.

Photo by Roaming Catholics

Photo by Roaming Catholics

Anybody who decides not to vote, or votes for a third party candidate (their “conscience”) commits a mortal sin. Thus it is important that you form your conscience properly, and use it to stop evil.

Every single vote matters in this election and for Catholics who want to continue down the pro-life, pro-religious liberty, anti-contraceptives in health care, pro-traditional marriage path, I don’t see them rallying around Trump, the man who is going to stop Hillary. Hillary has promised that she will throw Catholics under the bus.

I urge you, to take what could very well be your last stand against evil. Protect innocent life. Cast your vote for Donald Trump.

Or you can stand on your pedestal and vote your conscience. We’ll both be in the gulags if Hillary wins.

Catholic gulag

Jeff October 20, 2016 1 Comment Permalink

The Synod Is Over and All I Got Was This Lousy Shirt

The Synod on the Family is over. If you recall from my post three weeks ago in which I outlined the three possibilities that I foresaw the Synod  coming to, I was somewhat right:

I see that Option Two is much more likely to happen, simply because those who want to administer Holy Communion to adulterers and actively homosexual, will be able to through a liberal reading of the documents. Meanwhile, those who will actively refuse this reading will accuse the Synod of intentionally allowing this evil to occur. Thus what we will see is those who adhere to the “traditional view” (read: Catholic) will be accused of going the way of the SSPX and causing schism, when the reality simply is that Rome has condoned the practice by not condemning it, all for appearing to be “pastoral”.

Pope Francis leads the Synod of Bishops on the family at Vatican

The final report from the Synod does not come out and say that adulterers can receive Holy Communion. On the other hand, the report also doesn’t come out and condemn it either. From paragraphs 84-86 of the document as translated by Rorate Caeli:

84. The baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried are to be more integrated in the Christian communities in the various possible ways, avoiding every occasion of scandal.
The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral accompaniment, so that they be aware not only that they belong to the Body of Christ, that is the Church, but that they may have a joyful and fruitful experience. They are baptized, they are brothers and sisters, the Holy Spirit pours gifts and charisms in them for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in various ecclesial services: it is therefore necessary to discern which of the different forms of exclusion currently practiced in a liturgical, educational, pastoral, and institutional role that can be overcome. They should not only not feel excommunicated, but they should live and mature as living members of the Church, feeling her as a mother that welcomes them always, takes care of them affectionately, and encourages them on the path of life and Gospel. This integration is necessary for the Christian care and education of their children, who must be considered what is most important. For the Christian community, taking care of these persons is not a weakening of their own faith and testimony regarding matrimonial indissolubility: rather, the Church expresses precisely in this care her charity.

85. Saint John Paul II offered an all-encompassing criterion, that remains the basis for valuation of these situations: “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.” (FC, 84) It is therefore a duty of the priests to accompany the interested parties on the path of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the orientations of the Bishop. In this process, it will be useful to make an examination of conscience, by way of moments of reflection and repentance. Remarried divorcees should ask themselves how they behaved themselves when their conjugal union entered in crisis; if there were attempts at reconciliation; what is the situation of the abandoned partner ["partner" in the original Italian]; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and in the community of the faithful; what example does it offer to young people who are to prepare themselves to matrimony. A sincere reflection may reinforce trust in the mercy of God that is not denied to anyone.

Additionally, it cannot be denied that in some circumstances, “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or annulled (CIC, 1735) due to various conditioners. Consequently, the judgment on an objective situation should lead to the judgment on a ‘subjective imputability’” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of June 24, 2000, 2a). In determined circumstances, the persons find great difficulty with acting in a different way. Therefore, while holding up a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that the responsibility regarding specific actions or decisions is not the same in every case. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account the rightly formed conscience of persons, should take these situations into account. Also the consequences of the accomplished acts are not necessarily the same in every case.

86. The path of accompaniment and discernment orients these faithful to becoming conscious of their situation before God. The conversation with the priest, in internal forum, concurs to the formation of a correct judgment on what prevents the possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church and on the steps that may favor it and make it grow. Considering that in the same law there is no graduality (cf. FC, 34), this discernment must never disregard the demands of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. In order for this to happen, the necessary conditions of humility, reserve, love for the Church and to her teaching, in the sincere search for the will of God and for the desire to reach a more perfect answer to the latter, are to be guaranteed.

There are a few interesting things to note of these three paragraphs. Each paragraph in this document required a 2/3 majority vote in order for it to be considered in the final text of the document. This means that a total number of 177 yes votes were needed. On paragraph 84, 85, and 86, the vote tallies came up as 187, 178, and 190 respectively. These three paragraphs received the least amount of yes votes in the entire document. Even more interesting is paragraph 85, which is a direct quotation from Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, conveniently leaves out this key paragraph:

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

Because this document does not explicitly condemn the act of administering Holy Communion to adulterers, it easily allows for those who read this document with a non-Catholic lens to misuse and abuse the document. In short, the document is written with ambiguity in order that whoever reads it can obtain the interpretation that they want to use. Church documents require clarity when written. If you look at the pre-conciliar documents of the Church, you see that they are written in such a way that no matter what “lens” you read them through, you always arrive at a traditional and Catholic interpretation. Any other interpretation is clearly taken out of context.

This clarity follows from the example of Jesus in the Scriptures. In the entire Bread of Life Discourse in the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel, Jesus says six times that unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you do not have life within you. It is clear as day that Our Lord was not speaking of the Eucharist as merely a symbol, but rather, what it actually is. His Flesh and Blood.

But what Jesus has to say in the Gospels does not seem to be taken seriously by Pope Francis. In fact, Pope Francis had some very heavy words to those who uphold the law of Christ and the Church:

It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.

Compare this with what Pope Pius XII said:

Some assert that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by ever changeable notions.

Pope Francis glare

Even worse:

It was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

Is it not odd that Pope Francis, the Pope famous for the words “who am I to judge?” when it comes to homosexuals, is judging the hearts of those that uphold the teachings as ones who want to lord the rules of Christ and His Church in order to judge? Even more ironic, is that Jesus said specifically in the Gospel when it comes to divorce:

And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’ s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. Matthew 19:3-12

Jesus Christ makes it crystal clear with complete clarity that divorce is forbidden. There is no such thing as divorce, it is a lie. Yet, Pope Francis would make it sound as though those who adhere to the teachings of Christ are sitting in the throne of Moses (who as you just read allowed divorce) in order to cast judgment. Those who adhere to these “archaic rules” are not casting stones at those who sin, but rather, protecting the souls of those who are in a state of mortal sin from damaging their soul further by making sacrilegious communions.

St. Paul explains in his letter to the Corinthians:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

Allowing the divorced, remarried, and actively homosexual to receive Holy Communion without amending their lives and repenting will not bring mercy to the sinner, but rather, far more judgment that will only damn the poor soul to an eternity in Hell. But this isn’t my own opinion or my own teaching, but Our Lord’s teaching and the Holy Catholic Church’s. Real mercy would get the sinner away from that which causes their soul harm, not encourage them to live their life in that sin. But tell that to the Pope; after all, we’re in the “new Catholicism” and this is the “Church of Mercy”.

Jeff October 26, 2015 Leave A Comment Permalink

Modernists and the Synod: Attacking Tradition and Ecclesiastical Authority

This post is part five in a series of posts on the Synod of the Family and Modernism. Read part four here.

Vatican Pope

As we are in the final week of the Synod on the Family, we look at the last excerpt from Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (on Modernism).

Q. Contrast the conduct of the Modernists toward the Catholic champion with the methods displayed toward their own partisans?

A. While in flagrant contrast with this policy toward Catholics, they load with constant praise the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with choruses of applause.

If you have read me regularly leading up to and throughout the Synod on the Family, then you likely know where I will be going with this section. As we know, Walter Cardinal Kasper has been in favor of allowing the divorced, remarried, and actively homosexual to receive Holy Communion for quite some time. This is not new. This has been known for several decades. He is a Modernist through and through and has quite a bit of support from a number of the Cardinals.

What was even more surprising was the support he received from Pope Francis. Pope Francis stated specifically that the theology Cardinal Kasper proposed was “serene” and “an example of doing theology from one’s knees”. The theology that Cardinal Kasper proposed has already been condemned by Our Lord Jesus Christ. This can not be changed or negotiated. Those who are living in mortal sin, regardless of the sin, can not receive The Holy Eucharist. They must repent and remove themselves from the situation that puts them in their state of mortal sin. Until they amend their lives, they can not receive.

Q. How do the Modernists gage the learning of an author?

A. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine Tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium.

Q. When a Modernist falls under the condemnations of the Church, are his fellows bold enough to support him?

A. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the horror of good Catholics, gather round him, heap public praise upon him, venerate him almost as a martyr to truth.

catechism of modernism

Continuing from above, we see that Pope Francis has indeed praised Cardinal Kasper for his outright attacks on Catholic teaching. What makes it even worse is the other attacks Pope Francis himself has made upon the Holy Catholic Church. This past weekend, Pope Francis called for the decentralization of the Church and allowing local bishops’ conferences the freedom to determine how they will handle the “solutions” for administering the Holy Eucharist to divorced, remarried, and actively homosexuals.

Considering Catholic teaching is crystal clear, I will spell it out for those who don’t understand. You can’t receive the Eucharist if you are in mortal sin. Doing so will compound even more mortal sin on your soul and will lead you to Hell if you die. If a Bishop or priest gives you permission to receive with mortal sin on your soul, he is damning his soul and yours. No priest or bishop has the ability to the authority to change a mortal sin.

By Pope Francis’ actions, we can see that he is no champion of the Catholic faith. Continue to fast and pray. Psalm 108:8.

Jeff October 21, 2015 Leave A Comment Permalink

How Would Catholics React if the Synod Were Related to Abortion?

With the Synod of the Family looming only a months away, it is important that all Catholics realize what is at stake. There have been numerous attempts by many bishops, cardinals and even the Pope to look for ways which would allow those who are divorced, remarried, or engaged in homosexual behavior to receive the Holy Eucharist. We are told that we need to extend an olive branch; we need to show them mercy.

Synod of the Family

This message is in spite of St. Paul’s warnings from Scripture:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

The reality of the situation is this: those who are actively engaged in any immoral behavior and are both unrepentant and have not been absolved are living in mortal sin and thus cannot receive the Holy Eucharist. There is no tiptoeing around the issue. There are no loopholes. Only those in the state of grace may receive our Lord.

A number of Catholics who are considered good, faithful, conservative Catholics are viewing this Synod in a positive light. In mistaken attempts to be viewed as “good Catholics” they will submit to the decisions of the Synod. If the Synod decides that adulterers can receive the Holy Eucharist, then they will assume that is what the Holy Spirit wants, and it is now acceptable to allow the practice, regardless of almost 2,000 years of Church teaching against the matter.

This response does not make one a faithful Catholic in good standing, but rather a sheep who only follows orders, and uses neither the brain nor the intellect with which God has endowed him. It is crucial we view the Synod with a different example of Mortal Sin. Let’s view the Synod in terms of abortion.

Hypothetically, let us imagine this upcoming Synod is not the “Synod of the Family”, but rather, the “Synod of the Child”; bishops and cardinals from around the world and the Pope gather in Rome to discuss the need to be merciful to abortionists, their lobbyists, and those who are in favor of the abortion “option”. We hear the need to be merciful to these poor misunderstood sinners. We are told that there are avenues by which a person who supports abortion in some form or another needs to be accepted at Holy Eucharist, so that they too may not be excluded and may feel welcome.

We see reports from prominent bishops and public figures holding key positions within the Church hierarchy explain the great need for this dialogue. It is important that all of God’s children feel welcome and accepted at the Lord’s Supper. There are numerous articles by several cardinals who are themselves in favor of allowing unrepentant murderers to receive Holy Eucharist, without amending their lives. These same cardinals tell us that even the Pope is on their side. The Pope is even on record as saying that one particular Cardinal’s theology is serene and an example of “doing theology on one’s knees”.

But there are bishops and cardinals who are against this idea. They cite the Church teaching on abortion by citing the recently canonized Pope St. John Paul II. These faithful bishops and cardinals are told that these teachings are “too extreme”. At the end of the first “Synod of the Child” the Pope issues a statement declaring that we can’t be too strict, and we can’t be too liberal. He explains we need to find a happy medium. But we know that when the life of an innocent child is about to be brutally ended that there is no happy medium. The “strictness of the law” protects the innocent child. The Synod even releases a mid-session relatio explaining how abortionists “have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community” and asks if the Church is “capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?”

HoldingBabiesHead-CMPVideo6-854px_810_500_55_s_c1

It seems to me that without a doubt this hypothetical situation would not only fall flat on its face in being implemented, but the faithful would rise up in unison to decry this heinous act against the magisterial teaching of the Church. Under no circumstance should an individual whose job is to destroy the life of an innocent unborn child, mutilate her, and sell off her parts to the highest bidder be able to receive our Eucharistic Lord. The evil of abortion is so strong amongst the faithful that they would not accept any teaching given by Rome that stated anything to the contrary.

Yet, the majority of the faithful seem ready to accept what the Synod might say in regards to adulterers being allowed to receive Holy Communion.

If the Church were to be wrong in coming out with some sort of plan allowing abortionists and pro-abortion individuals to receive Holy Communion, then the Church would be wrong in coming out with a plan allowing adulterers to receive Holy Communion. In both cases, we have evil and heinous acts (divorce, remarriage, and homosexuality are all condemned by Our Lord and the Church). If you are one of those Catholics who would accept the Synod’s decision to depart from Church teaching on divorce, remarriage, and homosexuality, then you must also accept a hypothetical future in which the Church might one day accept those in favor of abortion to Communion as well. This isn’t an either/or situation, but rather an all or nothing situation.

Jeff September 2, 2015 Leave A Comment Permalink

Mortal Sin Against the Fifth Commandment – Injuring Another

The Fifth Commandment: “You Shall Not Kill”

stone-tablet-fifth-commandmentWillfully Injuring Or Trying to Hurt Another Person

It is not exactly the most obvious of mortal sins against this commandment, after all, why is hurting somebody a mortal sin when you don’t kill them?

When you are willfully trying to injure or hurt another person, generally speaking there is hatred in your heart. Remember that hatred is a mortal sin. You then take that hatred and give it a physical manifestation, that is hurting another person or injuring them.

The thing is, when we strike at another individual with this intention, it is not out of love. We are destroying their body. We break their bones, or tear their skin. We draw forth blood, blood that should remain within their bodies.

We are killing parts of their bodies. They may still be alive, but we are killing body parts.

St. Paul writes in the first letter to the Corinthians:

Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Each and every single person, Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, Pagan or Atheist, has a body, and that body is a temple for the Holy Spirit. They also have the free will to choose to become Catholic to embrace salvation. But regardless, the body is meant as a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit to reside. Attacking another person (especially a Catholic) is desecration of the body. Physically harming a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope gives an automatic excommunication.

Boxing

What about if you are being physically harmed by an assailant? Are you allowed to defend yourself by causing physical harm to them?

Yes. We must look at St. Thomas Aquinas’ principle of double effect. Double effect is comprised of 3 principles being (taken from Wikipedia):

  1. The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
  2. The agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
  3. The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

When it comes to self-defense and using the principle of double effect we find that it is okay because:

  1. The act of defending one’s self from physical harm is a good. We have every right to live.
  2. You are intending to defend yourself from the assailant. You are hurting them, but that is not your intention. You are not seeking out their injury.
  3. You are defending yourself and are using your best means to subdue the individual with the minimal damage to them as possible. That is if you have to break their arm in order to prevent further harm to come to you, then that is all you do, nothing more. Each situation is different and maybe pinning them is all you need in one circumstance. But, you are using due diligence to determine and assess your situation.

Defending one’s self is not a mortal sin. But causing physical harm is. Boxing and other forms of martial arts, for the purpose of fighting, seems to be a mortal sin as your intention is to hurt each other and cause physical harm. Taking a self-defense class and practicing on each other would fall under double-effect as you are learning so that you can defend yourself if the situation was needed down the road.

Now, St. John Chrysostom is famous for saying in regards to blasphemy:

And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them thither; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels!

Notice that St. John actually encourages you to physically harm someone if they commit blasphemy. These would not be sinful to do, as someone who blasphemies against God causes insult to Him. As the blasphemer is causing insult to God, they are causing damage to themselves, and you are defending the Lord.

Intentionally injuring another person or attempting to is a mortal sin. Go to confession.

Jeff July 8, 2014 1 Comment Permalink

get_footer() ?>