Theft: A Mortal Sin

[TerrorDæmonum]

This is 100% catholic teaching, with no more suitable setting than the one we have here on the forum. 

The book is aimed at non-Catholics and states it is not a theology manual. It is fine to cite it for what it is good for, but it is not 100% anything by its own admission and title. It is a Brief Catechism. It is intentionally using non-theological terms and being brief on subjects that are not the focus of the work.

This is not really suitable for citation as authoritative on this forum because this forum is primarily for Catholics, not non-Catholics.

And, this time, you cannot hide behind your "not the intention of this forum discussion" false argument.  I posted this in the history forum, not your precious sacred sciences forum. 

This thread was not a rebuke of anyone, but a more complete treatment of the subject of theft.

It isn't "my" Sacred Sciences forum.

This entire attempted display of superiority by you was a result of this cut and dry catholic teaching.    You have no right to posture as you do. 

If you choose to see it that way, that is your choice, but don't blame me for your perceptions.

I am not posturing. I did not express anything of myself on this matter.

Just because a few other women on the forum displayed ignorance in this regard, doesn't give you anymore reason to attempt a rebuke of me.

They knew more than you.

Are you lacking in self-awareness to this extent again? Are you really putting a brief catechism for non-Catholics above everything else? Do you think I am expressing my personal opinions and interpretations of what is clearly taught by the Church and analyzed by a great Doctor of the Church?

[Philip G.]

This is 100% catholic teaching, with no more suitable setting than the one we have here on the forum. 

The book is aimed at non-Catholics and states it is not a theology manual. It is fine to cite it for what it is good for, but it is not 100% anything by its own admission and title. It is a Brief Catechism. It is intentionally using non-theological terms and being brief on subjects that are not the focus of the work.

This is not really suitable for citation as authoritative on this forum because this forum is primarily for Catholics, not non-Catholics.

And, this time, you cannot hide behind your "not the intention of this forum discussion" false argument.  I posted this in the history forum, not your precious sacred sciences forum. 

This thread was not a rebuke of anyone, but a more complete treatment of the subject of theft.

It isn't "my" Sacred Sciences forum.

This entire attempted display of superiority by you was a result of this cut and dry catholic teaching.    You have no right to posture as you do. 

If you choose to see it that way, that is your choice, but don't blame me for your perceptions.

I am not posturing. I did not express anything of myself on this matter.

Just because a few other women on the forum displayed ignorance in this regard, doesn't give you anymore reason to attempt a rebuke of me.

They knew more than you.

Are you lacking in self-awareness to this extent again? Are you really putting a brief catechism for non-Catholics above everything else? Do you think I am expressing my personal opinions and interpretations of what is clearly taught by the Church and analyzed by a great Doctor of the Church?

Let us recall exactly how all this began.  In another thread about confessional penances, members plural were complaining about the consequences of giving light penances.  And, you, in typical hypocritical fashion gravely oversimplified the situation and inserted yourself with the following post:

Re: When did confessors start giving easy penances?
« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2021, 04:08:41 PM »
Say ThanksQuote
And one final thing: don't commit grave sins. If this is done, then all sins are venial, and all penances required are relatively light.

Talk about an oversimplification, and a comment that is in no way expressive of the theological precision you demand of others.  I responded with my post verbatum from a catholic catechism.  Which, only a double-tongued agent like yourself, who thinks there could ever possibly be such a thing as two separate and distinct expressions of a moral catholic teaching, resulting in an "us and them" elitist division, would ever take offense at.  There are not two separate talmuds in catholicism, one talmud for goys, and another talmud for the elite/jewish gentleman and wrabbis.

In fact, if ever authentic catholic moral teaching were to be censored-from/restricted-to an audience, it would not be as you propose, where so called "catholic teaching for non catholics" would be censored-from catholics of any intellectual degree be it great or small.  No, it would be the other way around.  The "theoretical" theology you constantly spam the forum with and your "final words" would be censored-from/restricted-to only those whose competence it does or doesn't concern, which is a minority.  Among the common folk, my catholic citation not only rules the roost, but conversely, there is in fact no setting where it is as you say "not suitable".   

[TerrorDæmonum]

Let us recall exactly how all this began.

You asked me, specifically, whether it qualifies as a mortal sin and other questions, and I answered it on its own thread, instead of on the History board thread where it was asked because I know the answer would require more length:

And one final thing: don't commit grave sins. If this is done, then all sins are venial, and all penances required are relatively light.

If you steal a small amount of money, that is a venial sin.  Do that enough times, and it becomes a mortal sin.  If you spread a sufficient quantity and variety of venial sins out along the spectrum of all possible sins, does it qualify as a mortal sin?  If you think it is a mortal sin, how do you confess that one?  If it is not, is a slight penance still "required"?  Such a sinful characteristic may be absolvable, as a result of memory loss, but is it forgivable?

[Philip G.]

Let us recall exactly how all this began.

You asked me, specifically, whether it qualifies as a mortal sin and other questions, and I answered it on its own thread, instead of on the History board thread where it was asked because I know the answer would require more length:

And one final thing: don't commit grave sins. If this is done, then all sins are venial, and all penances required are relatively light.

If you steal a small amount of money, that is a venial sin.  Do that enough times, and it becomes a mortal sin.  If you spread a sufficient quantity and variety of venial sins out along the spectrum of all possible sins, does it qualify as a mortal sin?  If you think it is a mortal sin, how do you confess that one?  If it is not, is a slight penance still "required"?  Such a sinful characteristic may be absolvable, as a result of memory loss, but is it forgivable?

It was just as much a question, as it was a statement.  Anyone with a brain can see that.  It was an indictment of your loose, oversimplified, and insertive/posturing response.  And, the beauty of it is that I didn't need to start a new thread filled with lengthy theoretical verbiage.  No, I simply took on the form of a lowly inquisitor, straight and to the point. 

[TerrorDæmonum]

And, the beauty of it is that I didn't need to start a new thread filled with lengthy theoretical verbiage.

Your disdain for theology is lamentable and explains a lot.

I thought this would be a simple matter. I did not expect these accusations and tirades.

[Philip G.]

And, the beauty of it is that I didn't need to start a new thread filled with lengthy theoretical verbiage.

Your disdain for theology is lamentable and explains a lot.

I thought this would be a simple matter. I did not expect these accusations and tirades.

You epitomize the danger of the theoretical.