Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (243).

[–] • 0 pt

Well why don't we go castrate faggots?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Your point might be stronger if you just said "why don't we physically pull homosexuals away from each other?", since under the current form, I can say that castration is a moral evil that is not justified by the noble end, whereas preventing a man from killing himself does no moral evil to him.

Under the new form, the only detail of importance is the fact that a sinner's free will is being prevented by an external actor.

Obviously the Church does not teach that sinners are to be compelled to not sin, any more than She teaches that heathens are to be compelled to convert. The Church acknowledges that for their to be any merit in it, the sinner must convert or repent of their own free will.

So I guess the difference I would emphasize is this: the homosexual, while sinning mortally, has the opportunity to repent, as with basically any other sin.

Suicide is an act that is mortally sinful, and leaves no time for repentance. Because , I could justify intervening in the case of the suicidal person, but not the homosexuals:

Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.

There is no opportunity for remedy, the peril is "sudden" and there is no opportunity for delay. The person's soul is at stake. Intervention is necessary.

If I find a friend in a bathtub with a razor blade, or standing on a roof's edge, or dangling from a rope, I will, if able, grab the razor, pull them back from the edge, or cut the rope, without hesitation, and I will feel no guilt and will have done no wrong.

Your point might be stronger if you just said "why don't we physically pull homosexuals away from each other?", since under the current form, I can say that castration is a moral evil that is not justified by the noble end, whereas *preventing* a man from killing himself does no moral evil to him. Under the new form, the only detail of importance is the fact that a sinner's free will is being prevented by an external actor. Obviously the Church does not teach that sinners are to be compelled to not sin, any more than She teaches that heathens are to be compelled to convert. The Church acknowledges that for their to be any merit in it, the sinner must convert or repent of their own free will. So I guess the difference I would emphasize is this: the homosexual, while sinning mortally, has the opportunity to repent, as with basically any other sin. Suicide is an act that is mortally sinful, and leaves no time for repentance. Because [necessity knows no law](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article6), I could justify intervening in the case of the suicidal person, but not the homosexuals: >Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law. There is no opportunity for remedy, the peril is "sudden" and there is no opportunity for delay. The person's soul is at stake. Intervention is necessary. If I find a friend in a bathtub with a razor blade, or standing on a roof's edge, or dangling from a rope, I will, if able, grab the razor, pull them back from the edge, or cut the rope, without hesitation, and I will feel no guilt and will have done no wrong. @Chiro

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

My recent reply to you about someone who knows all of the implications becomes relevant here.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

So let's say I intervene and cut the rope. I have a long discussion with the friend. Their family, doctors, and psychologists get involved. At the end of it the person still feels miserable, but now they "understand all the implications." He returns to the rope and this time we stand by and watch? "Welp, we tried." Or instead of a rope, the doctors administer a needle. "Good-death", euthanasia.

This isn't about excusing oneself from moral responsibility. This is about doing what is right and saving souls.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses suicide cannot possibly understand the implications.

No one denies a man killing a victim is wrong. No one would object to stopping the two-year-old from sticking a fork in the outlet. So why do we think that it is morally acceptable for a grown man to kill himself or consent to being killed? There is just as much an innocent victim in this case as with the murderer, and just as much a clouded or insufficiently informed reason as with the child.

All of this presupposes the truth of the Catholic faith and the reality of hell. I know this is more than a rational concern, but one of gnosis. I know, as we have discussed, that no argument in itself can compel someone to have a different gnosis than they have. If they don't accept the reality of hell, and have decided on death, then it may be that no argument can sway them from this course. But I know what fate awaits them, according to Divine Justice. To follow through with that act leaves them exposed, entirely dependent on Divine Mercy.

So they escape the suffering that would have saved them, and I'm here praying chaplets of Divine Mercy every day of my life until I die, beseeching the Lord to have mercy on the foolish soul that renounced Him and then killed himself - and I'm to live with the guilt of having allowed it.

Is this last a selfish appeal? Probably, but not without its due reference to the fate of the perished soul.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)