Hietanen, you suffer from the mother of all cases of scruples.  Anyone who is even indirectly involved in an activity that might lead someone to mortal sin is sinning in your view.

No that's not what I'm saying. Are you lying on purpose?

What I do say, however is that people who are directly involved in an activity that lead people to commit mortal sin is guilty of mortal sin. The player is directly part of the sin since he does not stay home to avoid the sin being committed in the first place.

The cheerleaders are there because of the players and because of the team, they are thus directly the cause of this problem. The players are approving them, and so are their team. The same applies with the gambling, since they have a paycheck from it. All their sporting revolves around mortal sins and non-necessity, and they are not avoiding going there to escape the mortal sins from being committed.

Catechism Question: “In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another‘s sin?” Answer: “We may either cause or share the guilt of another‘s sin in nine ways: 1. By counsel. 2. By command. 3. By consent. 4. By provocation. 5. By praise or flattery. 6. By concealment. 7. By being a partner in the sin. 8. By silence. 9. By defending the ill done..”

They are thus guilty in every way possible. Even more so when their game or work constitutes non-necessity. There work is the greatest waste of money possibly on earth, billions or trillions of dollars are wasted on nothing.

Besides, to call evident mortal sins only for a scruples is an infallible sign of damnation, and a sign that one does not fear God nor Hell as one should.

You are blaming football players for scantily-clad cheerleaders.  There's no connection, they don't make the rules or set the program about what the cheerleaders are wearing.  This isn't even material participation.

The cheerleader are part of their team, the cheerleaders are there because of the players and they are part of the same team, they are all in on this together. The players are fully aware that the millions of people that see these whoreish woman during their game would not see them half naked unless they walked into a strip club.

Behold a perfect comparison: If there were a game like a gladiator game where people took amusement in people killing each other - like in the old roman time - this would of course be a mortal sin to view and enjoy. Now, if there was a football game as the main attraction beside the gladiator game, and the cheerleaders (i.e the soul murdering gladiators in this comparison) were killing souls as part of the game, would that be ok for the players since they know that their game has these things in it? Of course not! The cheerleaders are part of that team, and wouldn't be there unless their team played the game. They are there and a part of the game. They are not excluded from it, but known by all. They are part of the game and attraction. They dance and move in accordance to the match times. They are part of the whole thing. To deny this is just simply to be a mortal sinner and an outrageous liar. Now the cheerleaders are perhaps worse in killing souls since they tempt billions of people into sin. They murder souls, yet you don't seem to care one bit. Hell will make you confess the truth after the second you die, sadly!

That's like blaming a secretary in a doctor's office where indecent magazines are offered to clients to read.

She could obviously not work there is she was a part of these magazines being spread, she could not pack them up, place them on the tables, or give them to others, for then it would be a mortal sin.

Let me me explain to you since you have a problem understanding:

The cheerleaders are there because of the players, and they are a part of the same team, but the magazines are not there because of the secretary.
The cheerleaders appearance follow the game, and as soon as there are some injury or break they appear, and this is known by everyone.

Therefore, your example was catastrophic, since the magazines are not dependant on the secretary as the cheerleaders are dependant on the team.

But if she did made the immoral sinful magazines to be there, then she would of course be in mortal sin and must stop working there.

everyone who works at a business that's open on Sunday unnecessarily is participating in sin, even if they themselves have Sunday off.

No, your logic is flawed, let me explain. If the pro-sport player chose to stay home on Sunday because he resented the Sabbath breaking, he would not have been guilty of the sin of Sabbath breaking or the sin of cheerleaders or the sin of gambling, since he was not part of that activity, nor did get payed for it.

Similarly, the worker who did not work on a Sunday (even though everyone else on there worked on Sunday) would not have sinned, since he did his part by staying away from working on Sunday, and neither did he get any income from working on a Sunday, since he stayed home. He thus did his part, he was not a part of their sin,and he didn't get payed for their sins, for he stayed home. He only got a paycheck for what he did, not for what the others did. The sports player, however, to avoid committing mortal sin, would have to stay away from his work indefinitely, and not for one day as with the other worker, and that's really the main difference between the two.

It can take a long time sometimes to achieve a state of mind that is even disposed towards humility, let alone actually humble.  And that is the crucial thing, to have humility.  We all think we have it but we all don't actually have it.

True humility is conformity to the will of God, and the thought of the possibility of being in error, and to be able to accept correction when being rebuked. It does not matter if a person thinks or says he's humble if rejects God's commands; for that is only false humility, pretended humility. For to act in such a way is an infallible sign of a prideful person who thinks he knows better then God himself!
So long a person rejects God commandments and disregards his dogmas, he cannot please Him.

Every argument you have made have been demolished. It only shows that you are in a state of damnation since you try to justify sins rather then having a horror for and escaping sins.

Quote from: IrishUkrainian

If it's sinful to eat out on Sundays, then if you really wanted to take it to the Nth degree, the following ridiculous situations would come up:

You're committing mortal sin for using electricity on Sunday.  After all, someone at the power company has to be working in order to keep the lights on.

 :applause:

 :applause:
Exactly! Well said. I hope you turn off your electricity, water, gas, phone, etc... Hietanen you pontificating armchair theologian. I'm quite surprised you have not elected yourself pope judging by the number of times you have condemned others for their "mortal sins" and excomunicated them. Come out of your cocoon. You are blinded by your own pride.

I am not surprised at all that you didn't read my response at his ridiculous statement. All the other things you mentioned has a necessity too. Pro-sports has no necessity, realize that you bad willed blind person!
Another person repeated his argument above, and it was refuted in the following manner:

No, it is not a mortal sin to use necessary things on a Sunday, don't be ridiculous. You need electricity to keep yourself warm and survive, you need electricity to feed yourself. Stop being ridiculous.

Whether it be a sin or no sin at all lies first and foremost on necessity. People can be and is excused through necessity. By necessity may you work on Sunday, if you have to. Without necessity, their is mortal sin. Likewise, if you without cause do a completely unnecessary activity such as eating out on a Sunday when you don't need to (and which most people will never need to do on a Sunday), you are in fact committing a mortal sin through non-necessity. Through this non-necessity, where you the cause of creating a possible mortal sin of unnecessary work on a Sunday to your neighbor. There is no excuse for such behavior unless you did not understand that what you did was wrong. But now, however, when being aware of these facts, you will not escape mortal sin if you are helping others in doing unnecessary work through non-necessity.


Many people don't read the responses refuting the arguments, since many people here want to justify their mortal sins of helping other people committing unnecessary work on Sundays, such as eating out, or watching pro-sports, etc.

Sinners excuse themselves in breaking God's laws. Real Catholics follow God's commandments and precepts.
Realize now that if you lived a hundred years ago, you wouldn't even try to argue against what I am saying.
For hundred years ago it would be an obvious thing not to work on Sundays or to encourage people into working unnecessary on Sundays (which is the reason for everything being completely dead on Sundays in the fully Catholic countries/towns). This would be obvious for all people, of course, except for the many mortal sinners in the last generation who value there worldly sinful activities more than they value God.

Is it sinful to post on (or even read) this message board (or any other) on Sundays?

You are all a bunch of hypocritical sinners!!!  (Ooops, that would include me -- what am I saying?!)

 :alcohol: :dancing-banana: :bob-marley: :jumping2: :soapbox: :dancing: :geezer: :guitar: :cheers: :pop:

No, message boards are operating themselves on any given day, as is most internet sites. Besides, using a message board for spiritual reason have a necessity as well. People need to be feed (spiritually), even on Sundays.

And for people to compare forum, the internet or using electricity with pro sports or eating out, just reveal the bad will of some people, and they they are not after the truth, but in excusing.

You don't need the Internet on Sundays.  After all, you are forcing hundreds of network administrators, network engineers, technicians, not to mention customer support, etc. to work on Sundays.

Right. That is why I don't use the internet on Sundays except for my spiritual work, that is, helping and education my neighbor spiritually.

I don't watch news on Sundays, nor do I go in to any other worldly site at all during Sundays (unless I have to, for my spiritual work in spreading God's word/material).

Besides, those people or work you mentioned above, most of them has nothing to do with most internet sites anyway, since most are operated independently without forcing hundreds of network administrators, network engineers, technicians, not to mention customer support, etc.
Another point I made before was that we neither know who is working or not working on the sites your visiting for MONEY on Sundays, so this would be another reason why it would be acceptable to use the internet on Sundays (although not recommended at all unless for spiritual reasons, such as reading, or doing other spiritual works, etc. since that is what the Sunday is intended for.)

Also, many sites may have necessity to be up and operating on all days, so there could be a valid reason to work for keeping some sites up, such as hospital sites, or a tsunami warning site, etc.

So your examples are simply not correct.

For all those not named Hietanen, I still have a problem eating out at restaurants on Sundays.

Using electricity is a necessity, just like getting gas, I've already covered that though people are ignoring it.  

Going to a restaurant is not a necessity, not even if you have an irresistible craving for California Rolls, and shops and restaurants used to all be closed on Sunday.  
 
I may go next time I'm asked just to not be a prig, calling on the tenet of "probabilism," I don't know.

Quote from: Raoul76

For all those not named Hietanen, I still have a problem eating out at restaurants on Sundays.

Using electricity is a necessity, just like getting gas, I've already covered that though people are ignoring it.  

Going to a restaurant is not a necessity, not even if you have an irresistible craving for California Rolls, and shops and restaurants used to all be closed on Sunday.  
 
I may go next time I'm asked just to not be a prig, calling on the tenet of "probabilism," I don't know.

Raul, you should consider the below passage before you do something which you know you shouldn't be doing:

1 Kings 15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire h0Ɩ0cαųsts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”

Thank you for the words of wisdom, Pope Hietanen.