I can think of two other particular sins which Augustine describes. He confesses to going to Mass with unworthy intentions and records a disgraceful conversation with a pal in which he played the part of a tempting devil.

"The most specific sin... That's it." That may be it for the most specific sin. But you are admitting that there is at least one other specific sin. Two specific occasions is not "never." Some sticklers would say that you are admitting to THREE specific sins in using the word "most."

But we were not talking only of describing sins. We were talking of describing "precise moments in his life." He describes many hundreds of those moments in his Confessions. If we mean only precise SINFUL moments, let's be precise and say so.

The Little Flower gives four or five examples of childhood sins that she sees as being serious enough to indicate that she was hell-bent even before she reached the age of reason. She confessed them, and then wrote about them, and did not edit them out even once she came to believe that she had been writing for the whole world to see. I think that her sister Mother Agnes edited out some of them.

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

My point was that moral theologians don't use specifics, but general sins.

Fr Heribert Jone is pretty specific at times.

There's a table of acceptable and unacceptable medical procedures in his "Moral Theology" book.

Clare.

Granted, and St. Alphonsus gets very specific in his treatise on moral theology. Let me re-phrase that then to be more precise.

Moral theologians cannot detail all specifics, nor is it their intention to when discussing morality. They discuss general sins, and discuss personal instances where the sin can be grievious or venial, what things to encounter to stop recidivism, things which are common specifically to look out for, but it cannot be comprehensive because of the changing of the world.

Let's go back to drugs and Fr. Jone's work. He only mentions morphine, opium and chloroform (section 110). He never mentions heroine, but one can obvious deduce that with the prohibition of opium that heroine can be included. He never mentions stimulants (which existed in his time) in general at all, nor did he mention pot.  

Fr. Jone never mentions specific far-reaching implications of media when discussing what is public. He says:

"373. There is no injury to reputation, and hence no detraction when the faults mentioned are already publicly known....
"A crime is publicly known... if it is commonly known or if it will will soon be generally known.
"A crime publicly known in one place and not yet known in another may be made known in the latter if it can be foreseen that it will soon become known there..."

[/quote]Quote:
Get a real argument before continuing with the sede hijacking of this thread.


You may stretch anything you like to fit your imagined parameters, Mike, but this dog will not hunt.

Excellent idea, Veritatis.  Maybe I'm just tired, but I know I am tired of the convoluted rationale of the only rational member of this forum.  I've reached my load limit for today, so I think I'll take my ball and go home.  

I do have one question for ANYONE that can answer it.  Why do these "super intellectuals" all talk in the same circles and use the same tricks?  Couldn't they come up with something original just for a change of pace---like honest discourse?  

And I have another question for Mater.  Where the heck are all those threads Stephanos was covering the forum with?  I simply can't find them.

You may stretch anything you like to fit your imagined parameters, Mike, but this dog will not hunt.

I type fast, so what. These posts aren't made for examinations of syntax. The fact that your argument focuses on it shows how exposed you feel. Whatever....

Maybe I'm just tired, but I know I am tired of the convoluted rationale of the only rational member of this forum.

Go rest, my dear lady.  I shall do the same momentarily.

Why do these "super intellectuals" all talk in the same circles and use the same tricks?  Couldn't they come up with something original just for a change of pace---like honest discourse?

I apologize for my part in any "games" [If any, it was unintentional].  I just wanted to point out that Mike's accusation of "hijacking" was undiluted hogwash.  Sleep well.

Btw, I prohibit all of you to stop snorting cocaine!

Questions and Answers by Fr. Peter Scott


Is it permissible to publish the sins of deceased persons?

It is certainly true that a man's reputation is the most precious exterior possession that he can have, as the book of Proverbs states, `A good name is better than great riches (Prov. 22:1), and that he has a strict right to it in justice. It is also true that despite the fact that the modern world considers that a reputation is of little consequence, it is a sign of honor and goodness that a man values the opinion that others have of his excellence. Finally, it is also true that reputation concerns principally a man's practice of virtue, and only secondarily his other good qualities, and that this right is not extinguished by death, for a man, having an immortal soul, always has a right to his reputation.

Consequently, the deliberate telling or publishing of the sins that a man committed during his life, without proportionate reason, is a mortal sin of detraction both against justice and against charity, even if the facts told are perfectly true.

However, the right to one's reputation is not absolute, and has limitations. Just as we can tell the sins of the living, if it is necessary for their own good (that they might be corrected), or for the good of a third person (to prevent him from being led into error or sin), or for the common good, so also do there exist reasons for relating the sins of deceased persons. In the case of the deceased it is usually the common good that is invoked, and rightly so.

In fact, an historian of the Reformation who would not tell the sins of King Henry VIII or Luther could not be considered an historian. He would not tell the truth, and his history would serve no purpose. Likewise an historian of Pope John Paul II who would not tell of his public sin of religious indifferentism at Assisi in 1986 would not tell the truth. History is the master of life, as the saying goes, and to do so it must tell all that pertains to the truth, the evil as well as the good, the faults of Catholics as well as their virtues. Hence the moral theologians are in agreement that for the sake of history itself, there is always a sufficient reason, in virtue of the common good, for relating all certainly true events, and backing up with docuмents (cf. Prummer, II, § 194).

This applies to all persons who are public, who have a role in history, and notably writers, authors, artists and men of ideas, and even with respect to acts that were not publicly known while they were alive. It is only by the full picture of their lives that their impact on history can be evaluated. Thus it cannot be considered a sin against justice for persons to have made known the already published sins of Eric Gill, who as an activist in the Catholic Distributist movement was a public and historical figure.

Nevertheless, a disorder can frequently arise in such matters, due to a certain curiosity about evil things that is common to fallen human nature. It is very easy for the mode of telling of sins to be excessive and scandalous, and to become a serious sin against charity.

Such is the case of those who would concentrate on a man's sins before his conversion, or who would describe his sins in a very graphic manner. This is particularly the case with sins against the sixth commandment, in which all detail is an occasion of sin, and very dangerous to relate or to read. Some people, however, wrongly take advantage of such sins to promote their own cause. The Internet is easily abused for gossip mongering, and those who went into the details of Gill's moral life on the Internet were sinning against charity by the manner and publicity that they gave to this discussion, and also on account of the scandal that an unnecessary and excessively public discussion of sins against purity does cause.

The key issue is the common good. Persons who have a particularly immoral life should only be discussed if the common good requires it, as it does with Luther or Henry VIII. However, the Catholic in charity ought to avoid so doing if it is not really necessary for history. It is for this reason that prudence dictates that it is preferable not to quote from or bring up the subject of such persons, particular if they are Catholic, on account of the scandal that the telling of historical facts could cause.