Use the comment box below to pose your questions.
-
Those who reject the Magisterium, grasp at straws seeking its replacement.
-
Click here for a list of my Roman Catholic theology books and booklets, including books about the future.
-
To read the Kindle versions of my books, without a Kindle device, get the free cloud reader — or — any of the free Kindle reading apps.
The CPDV — my conservative Catholic translation of the Bible, from the Latin Vulgate into English, is available at Amazon.com in Kindle format and online here.
Meta
Subscribe to my RSS Feed. (If you use Google Chrome, first add a Chrome RSS reader or extension.)
Add this badge to your site:
-
If the works of God seem foolish to you, who is the fool — God or you?
the reproach of Christ 
When the devil tempts a soul to sin, is he committing a sin or fulfilling God’s will that humans be tested?
Since the fallen angels are already separated from God’s grace, can they commit a sin?
Yes, they are sinning. The fallen angels have free will, so they can sin more or less. They do not have grace, so they cannot repent. They know that they will be punished more or less, accordingly as they sin, so they have a reason to use free will to avoid the worst sins. Thus, they are culpable for their sins of tempting souls.
As St.Alphonsus says in his writing “Uniformity With Gods Will” everything happens because of Gods will, save sin. It is God’s will that sin happens to us but not that we sin. God cannot will sin, since it would be against God’s nature, but God does allow sin and temptation to happen to us. St.Alphonsus says if we come home today and our house is ransacked, it it because God willed it, not that he willed the sin. Everything that happens to us God wills, save our own sin.
OK. But there is a difference between God willing an event by passive permission (He decides not to stop it), and willing an event actively (He chooses the event for a purpose). God does not send the thief to ransack your house, He just permits it.
In mass today the deacon, who will soon become a Franciscan priest, said in the homily that EPH 5:21-33(the first reading for today) should not be taken literally. He basically said he doesnt agree with none of EPH 5:21-33. He then goes on to try to pit women against men like the democratic party does now days, and I had enough and left, which was only maybe the second time ever I left mass because of a bad homily. Many now days, even many priests, do not believe in the total inerrancy of Scripture. Is the total inerrancy of Holy Scripture a dogma? Is this teaching in EPH 5:21-33 dogma? I will have to reread your excellent post here:https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/wifely-obedience-in-catholic-teaching/
total inerrancy is dogma. “not taken literally” Well, the husband as the head of his wife is figurative. The use of the term fear can be considered a figure; it is not literal fear. But the problem is that he was living by the teachings of secular society, and rejecting the teaching of Scripture. If a passage is difficult, we should pray about it, not reject it.
Sometimes you put these Q&As on your Reproach of Christ, sometimes on your Catholicism.io site. How do I know where you will post them next?
I’ve decided to keep the Q&As on the Reproach blog only. Catholicism.io will be for articles on the papacy, salvation, ethics, and theology of the body.
Are Actors guilty of the sins they depict?
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/fun-stuff/movie-reviews/88-unam-sanctam-catholicam-movie-reviews/84.html
Is this theory correct?
I don’t agree that blasphemy consists in saying the words. It consists in asserting a falsehood against God, or in expressing malice toward God. Theologians might speak the words of various blasphemies, in the context of discussing what is and is not blasphemy, without committing the sin. So that point is wrong.
Lust consists in the interior desire; the exterior acts are different additional sins. So the actors are not necessarily guilty of lust. Passionate kissing is not lust.
Film makers need to consider the effects of their film on the audience, whether they do more harm than good, such as by promoting sexual sins as normal, or glorifying violence. They sin if they commit sexual acts or explicitly simulate sexual acts in a film.
I agree with some of what he says, but not most of it.
comment on this !!
http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/catholic-campaign-for-human-development/us-catholic-bishops-give-280000-to-lgbt-and-abortion-activists/
Community Alliance of Tenants works with poor person to find decent affordable housing. The Bishops are correct in not restricting donations of money only to groups that entirely comply with Catholic teaching. Such a policy would cast aside many groups doing moral work with persons in need. It’s unfortunate that the group also supports LGBT and abortion issues. But the Bishops are not sinning by giving them money for their work with affordable housing.