That is why as a Catholic you are required to go to confession at least once a month and do your examination of conscience before going to confession 🙏🙏
Thank you for answering my question live on the radio! Maybe I will call in again to ask a follow-up like: Since it is possible to lose one's salvation through a mortal sin of omission, wouldn't it be true to say that certain obligatory good works retain/keep/hold onto salvation even if they don't initially save us or put us into a state of justification? Though subject to prudential judgment, doesn't Jesus give us specific examples of mortal sins of omission at the end of Mt 25 and the parable of Lazarus?
@@hynjus001 You can see that the end of my comment has what exactly I have in mind. What I have in mind goes beyond the Catholic context of obligations the Church gives us.
If what you're getting at is that, once you have the initial covenant with God, only then do works become important, I think that is a good takeaway. And I think that's true of any relationship. With contract-based relationships the contract ceases to exist if you do not keep your end of it (or it needs to be renegotiated). With covenant relationships, the relationship still remains even if necessary actions are failing to be met. But the failures instead incur penalties, and harsh ones at that. Hell is a penalty for failing to live up to the covenant with God. I think that's correct...
There was a girl I saw last night and she was crying asking for money saying that she was homeless.. I do feel guilty for not giving her money. I had seen the same girl a few miles away lying on the ground next to a grocery store one day .. Her colour looked purple and I was concerned she could be in danger of losing her life for being on some type of substance abuse like alcohol or drugs ... I bought her some food at that time as I didn't want to give her money in case it got spent on something not helpful.. Anyway last evening she was crying in front of me telling me she was homeless... I asked her what she spends the money on as I was feeling a bit resistant by now .. I told her I thought she is using it for something not helpful. ... some people in our town have died on the streets and they have been drug addicts ... what do you think I should be doing ? giving them the money or not ? I'm concerned about not doing the right thing.
No I think you are right not to give them money. Giving them food and water helps them get the sustenance they need to survive, but your concern with giving them money is completely justified, since many homeless people are victims of drug trafficking, so if they are addicted to drugs they will use that money to get more drugs and may end up dying on the street in the same way. But keep giving them the things they may need to survive, which can also include something like tents, blankets, a coat, food, water, etc.
A group of us parishioners buy water bottles, fast food gift cards (e.g. Subway), snacks (granola bar, raisins, jerky, peanut butter, etc.), hygiene supplies (wet wipes, hand sanitizer, toothbrush/paste, etc.), totebag, etc. and put them in gallon ziplock bags with a note about God's care and love for them. We tend to keep the bags in our cars and have given out at least 350 bags over the past year or two. Rather than engage in any criticism or judgment of anyone, we just buy, prepare, and give what we know can only do good, according to our own conscience and prudential judgment, and invite others to do the same.
The main way I can think of a sin of omission regarding the poor being a mortal sin is if you have so much excess wealth it could pay another person enough to get them off the streets (a significant good indeed!). Yet, despite having this, you do NOTHING at all to try to help ANYONE with that excess. Money is power, and when you have so much it could lift someone out of poverty, it's time to do something with it. But that's just my druthers.
You know, I think there's a sense in which you're right and a sense in which you're wrong. You're right because we are obligated to be charitable. How charitable is up to faithful discernment, but the rule is usually "a lot more than you already are" However, I don't think lifting people out of poverty is the right goal here. Poverty itself is not an evil to be avoided; consider the vows of poverty that consecrated people make. However those that are destitute (their needs are not being met) absolutely need us to lift them out of that from day to day. It's about the line you draw. We're not required to provide people in lower income brackets supplementary salaries, nor does that even work. But if there's a hungry peson you better get them a meal, and if there's a cold person you better get them something warm.
@@HolyKhaaaaan Depends what you mean by "pay another person enough to get them off the streets." That is not necessarily a significant good. Depends on the reason why the person is "on the streets." One is merely exchanging one evil for another if one is making the person lazy, wasteful, and totally dependent on another when they could/should be improving themselves and working to support themselves (2 Thes 3:10). Money is the worst thing you can give some people because they don't know how to use it responsibly and helpfully but only to harm themselves (or others), and that is NOT LOVE; that is NOT willing the good of that person. But the super-wealthy do have the ability to safely provide the poor/homeless basic food, shelter, and education for enough time to become self-supporting. Unfortunately, the poor/homeless often have behavioral/mental barriers to taking full advantage of such a opportunity. If the person is truly disabled, handicapped, dependent, etc. such that they can't provide for themselves, then that's a different situation.
@@wheatandtares-xk4lp I didn't even mention anything about "lifting people out of poverty" or that being "the right goal" or about "supplementary salaries" and whether they work or not, so how could I possibly be wrong about something I didn't even mention or remotely imply at all? All I mentioned was doing good to others and how these bags can _only_ do good (compared to cash). If you want to speak about unmentioned/unimplied tangential issues, feel free, but then don't proceed to say I'm wrong about them, please. But since you bring it up, I will certainly disagree with your statement "poverty itself is not an evil to be avoided" and your appeal/comparison to the consecrated life, though perhaps we are just defining poverty differently. Poverty, understood as the inability to or significant limitation to sustain oneself/one's body physically, is absolutely an evil and one to be avoided. Such poverty leads not merely to suffering but to general incapability and eventually death. One cannot pray, worship, or serve/love others while one is languishing from starvation and the illnesses associated with malnutrition. Poverty limits one's time/ability to love and serve God and neighbor, so this is not even the kind of poverty you find in consecrated communities. Because poverty is an evil, there will be none of it in heaven. In fact, ON PRINCIPLE, the definition of evil IS A POVERTY or lack of some good, not the positive existence of anything! So the comparison to the consecrated life is not a very good one for many reasons. The vow of poverty is freely chosen, typically freely leaving a life of comfort/control (rather than losing job, family, health, house, etc.), and is rarely an abject poverty to the point of lack of food, drink, shelter, medical care, etc. Typically the vow just means that the superior/abbot/abbess has ultimate control over the resources of the community, not that resources are completely absent or severely limited. The vow of poverty is more a specific application of the vow of obedience. It is also not so much an embrace of the evil of destitute poverty as a giving up of personal property and the personal excess wealth or possessions that come with personal property and control of one's time and earnings. It should also be noted that everyone in a consecrated community who is able is expected to work to support the community, and the community chooses who can join the community to both contribute to it and benefit from it. So the circumstances of the consecrated life, even of the most austere Franciscan, are very far removed from the typical beggar on the street. I think we can safely assume that someone begging on street corners for hours is not earning any salary elsewhere that could be supplemented.
Unfortunately the coffee i made this morning, I used half and half that is from the time when my power went out from hurricane Beryl. I thought we had brought it from a friends house in time to “save” it but it appears not. It has gone bad
I get Jimmy's point and he's right, but the rattlesnake metaphor is a bit silly -- they do NOT like it if you try to put a bucket on them, and will try to get you if you try.
Yes absolutely, for example omitting going to work and assisting Mass without just cause. Those are two among many other sins of omission, in which people can be tempted to better play video games or see that awesome soccer match, then you would be sinning mortally I would say if done deliberately and with full knowledge. In essence people who tend to take little to no responsibilities and have a weak work ethic can be prone to sin of omission, even mortally if necessary conditions apply.
Though subject to prudential judgment, doesn't Jesus give us specific examples of mortal sins of omission at the end of Mt 25 and the parable of Lazarus?
@@tonyl3762 Overall what Jesus mentions in last part of Mt 25 is basically to self indulge and not care about anyone else except ourselves, and yes that can lead to a mortal sin if done deliberately and with full knowledge. However does not mean all needs to be volunteers and go to far places living in near total poverty like Mother Theresa did, given not all can do that or would be able to endure it.
@@gamefan8552 I already admitted that prudential judgement/balance is needed, but I think it's a mistake to think Mt 25 has anything to do with self-indulgence specifically. It has everything to do with neglecting to feed, cloth, visit, etc. the poor, sick, imprisoned. In the parable with the rich man, "at his gate lay a poor man." The rich man apparently passed this poor man daily without helping. A group of us parishioners buy water bottles, fast food gift cards (e.g. Subway), snacks (granola bar, raisins, jerky, peanut butter, etc.), hygiene supplies (wet wipes, hand sanitizer, toothbrush/paste, etc.), totebag, etc. and put them in gallon ziplock bags with a note about God's care and love for them. We tend to keep the bags in our cars and have given out at least 350 bags over the past year or two. Rather than engage in any criticism or judgment of anyone, we just buy, prepare, and give what we know can only do good, according to our own conscience and prudential judgment, and invite others to do the same.
1:00 "It would be impossible to do every good work that we could possibly do." I think Akin is using the word "possible" in two different senses here, "theoretically possible" versus "actually possible", otherwise this doesn't make sense.
It is impractical to go out for Chinese and go out for a hamburger for dinner. It is impossible to get married and to take vows at a monastery at the same time of one's life.
“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.” 1 John 5:16-17
That's one of the reasons why many saints feared like the plague being consecrated bishops
That is why as a Catholic you are required to go to confession at least once a month and do your examination of conscience before going to confession 🙏🙏
Thanks Jimmy ❤
Thank you for answering my question live on the radio! Maybe I will call in again to ask a follow-up like:
Since it is possible to lose one's salvation through a mortal sin of omission, wouldn't it be true to say that certain obligatory good works retain/keep/hold onto salvation even if they don't initially save us or put us into a state of justification?
Though subject to prudential judgment, doesn't Jesus give us specific examples of mortal sins of omission at the end of Mt 25 and the parable of Lazarus?
Catholics are required to attend Sunday mass. Doing so without a good reason is a mortal sin. Is this what you mean?
@@hynjus001 You can see that the end of my comment has what exactly I have in mind. What I have in mind goes beyond the Catholic context of obligations the Church gives us.
If what you're getting at is that, once you have the initial covenant with God, only then do works become important, I think that is a good takeaway.
And I think that's true of any relationship. With contract-based relationships the contract ceases to exist if you do not keep your end of it (or it needs to be renegotiated).
With covenant relationships, the relationship still remains even if necessary actions are failing to be met. But the failures instead incur penalties, and harsh ones at that.
Hell is a penalty for failing to live up to the covenant with God.
I think that's correct...
There was a girl I saw last night and she was crying asking for money saying that she was homeless.. I do feel guilty for not giving her money. I had seen the same girl a few miles away lying on the ground next to a grocery store one day .. Her colour looked purple and I was concerned she could be in danger of losing her life for being on some type of substance abuse like alcohol or drugs ... I bought her some food at that time as I didn't want to give her money in case it got spent on something not helpful.. Anyway last evening she was crying in front of me telling me she was homeless... I asked her what she spends the money on as I was feeling a bit resistant by now .. I told her I thought she is using it for something not helpful. ... some people in our town have died on the streets and they have been drug addicts ... what do you think I should be doing ? giving them the money or not ? I'm concerned about not doing the right thing.
No I think you are right not to give them money. Giving them food and water helps them get the sustenance they need to survive, but your concern with giving them money is completely justified, since many homeless people are victims of drug trafficking, so if they are addicted to drugs they will use that money to get more drugs and may end up dying on the street in the same way. But keep giving them the things they may need to survive, which can also include something like tents, blankets, a coat, food, water, etc.
@@matthewoburke7202 Okay. many thanks for the reply..
@@davidkeel Of course! I hope this helped, and God be with you.
A group of us parishioners buy water bottles, fast food gift cards (e.g. Subway), snacks (granola bar, raisins, jerky, peanut butter, etc.), hygiene supplies (wet wipes, hand sanitizer, toothbrush/paste, etc.), totebag, etc. and put them in gallon ziplock bags with a note about God's care and love for them.
We tend to keep the bags in our cars and have given out at least 350 bags over the past year or two.
Rather than engage in any criticism or judgment of anyone, we just buy, prepare, and give what we know can only do good, according to our own conscience and prudential judgment, and invite others to do the same.
The main way I can think of a sin of omission regarding the poor being a mortal sin is if you have so much excess wealth it could pay another person enough to get them off the streets (a significant good indeed!). Yet, despite having this, you do NOTHING at all to try to help ANYONE with that excess.
Money is power, and when you have so much it could lift someone out of poverty, it's time to do something with it.
But that's just my druthers.
You know, I think there's a sense in which you're right and a sense in which you're wrong.
You're right because we are obligated to be charitable. How charitable is up to faithful discernment, but the rule is usually "a lot more than you already are"
However, I don't think lifting people out of poverty is the right goal here. Poverty itself is not an evil to be avoided; consider the vows of poverty that consecrated people make. However those that are destitute (their needs are not being met) absolutely need us to lift them out of that from day to day. It's about the line you draw.
We're not required to provide people in lower income brackets supplementary salaries, nor does that even work. But if there's a hungry peson you better get them a meal, and if there's a cold person you better get them something warm.
@@HolyKhaaaaan Depends what you mean by "pay another person enough to get them off the streets." That is not necessarily a significant good. Depends on the reason why the person is "on the streets." One is merely exchanging one evil for another if one is making the person lazy, wasteful, and totally dependent on another when they could/should be improving themselves and working to support themselves (2 Thes 3:10). Money is the worst thing you can give some people because they don't know how to use it responsibly and helpfully but only to harm themselves (or others), and that is NOT LOVE; that is NOT willing the good of that person. But the super-wealthy do have the ability to safely provide the poor/homeless basic food, shelter, and education for enough time to become self-supporting. Unfortunately, the poor/homeless often have behavioral/mental barriers to taking full advantage of such a opportunity.
If the person is truly disabled, handicapped, dependent, etc. such that they can't provide for themselves, then that's a different situation.
@@wheatandtares-xk4lp I didn't even mention anything about "lifting people out of poverty" or that being "the right goal" or about "supplementary salaries" and whether they work or not, so how could I possibly be wrong about something I didn't even mention or remotely imply at all? All I mentioned was doing good to others and how these bags can _only_ do good (compared to cash). If you want to speak about unmentioned/unimplied tangential issues, feel free, but then don't proceed to say I'm wrong about them, please.
But since you bring it up, I will certainly disagree with your statement "poverty itself is not an evil to be avoided" and your appeal/comparison to the consecrated life, though perhaps we are just defining poverty differently.
Poverty, understood as the inability to or significant limitation to sustain oneself/one's body physically, is absolutely an evil and one to be avoided. Such poverty leads not merely to suffering but to general incapability and eventually death. One cannot pray, worship, or serve/love others while one is languishing from starvation and the illnesses associated with malnutrition. Poverty limits one's time/ability to love and serve God and neighbor, so this is not even the kind of poverty you find in consecrated communities. Because poverty is an evil, there will be none of it in heaven. In fact, ON PRINCIPLE, the definition of evil IS A POVERTY or lack of some good, not the positive existence of anything!
So the comparison to the consecrated life is not a very good one for many reasons. The vow of poverty is freely chosen, typically freely leaving a life of comfort/control (rather than losing job, family, health, house, etc.), and is rarely an abject poverty to the point of lack of food, drink, shelter, medical care, etc. Typically the vow just means that the superior/abbot/abbess has ultimate control over the resources of the community, not that resources are completely absent or severely limited. The vow of poverty is more a specific application of the vow of obedience. It is also not so much an embrace of the evil of destitute poverty as a giving up of personal property and the personal excess wealth or possessions that come with personal property and control of one's time and earnings. It should also be noted that everyone in a consecrated community who is able is expected to work to support the community, and the community chooses who can join the community to both contribute to it and benefit from it.
So the circumstances of the consecrated life, even of the most austere Franciscan, are very far removed from the typical beggar on the street.
I think we can safely assume that someone begging on street corners for hours is not earning any salary elsewhere that could be supplemented.
@@tonyl3762 I made a mistake. I was intending to respond to "HolyKhaaaan" above. RUclips has a poor comment ui.
Unfortunately the coffee i made this morning, I used half and half that is from the time when my power went out from hurricane Beryl. I thought we had brought it from a friends house in time to “save” it but it appears not. It has gone bad
I get Jimmy's point and he's right, but the rattlesnake metaphor is a bit silly -- they do NOT like it if you try to put a bucket on them, and will try to get you if you try.
👍
Yes absolutely, for example omitting going to work and assisting Mass without just cause.
Those are two among many other sins of omission, in which people can be tempted to better play video games or see that awesome soccer match, then you would be sinning mortally I would say if done deliberately and with full knowledge.
In essence people who tend to take little to no responsibilities and have a weak work ethic can be prone to sin of omission, even mortally if necessary conditions apply.
Though subject to prudential judgment, doesn't Jesus give us specific examples of mortal sins of omission at the end of Mt 25 and the parable of Lazarus?
@@tonyl3762 Overall what Jesus mentions in last part of Mt 25 is basically to self indulge and not care about anyone else except ourselves, and yes that can lead to a mortal sin if done deliberately and with full knowledge.
However does not mean all needs to be volunteers and go to far places living in near total poverty like Mother Theresa did, given not all can do that or would be able to endure it.
@@gamefan8552 I already admitted that prudential judgement/balance is needed, but I think it's a mistake to think Mt 25 has anything to do with self-indulgence specifically. It has everything to do with neglecting to feed, cloth, visit, etc. the poor, sick, imprisoned. In the parable with the rich man, "at his gate lay a poor man." The rich man apparently passed this poor man daily without helping.
A group of us parishioners buy water bottles, fast food gift cards (e.g. Subway), snacks (granola bar, raisins, jerky, peanut butter, etc.), hygiene supplies (wet wipes, hand sanitizer, toothbrush/paste, etc.), totebag, etc. and put them in gallon ziplock bags with a note about God's care and love for them.
We tend to keep the bags in our cars and have given out at least 350 bags over the past year or two.
Rather than engage in any criticism or judgment of anyone, we just buy, prepare, and give what we know can only do good, according to our own conscience and prudential judgment, and invite others to do the same.
1:00 "It would be impossible to do every good work that we could possibly do." I think Akin is using the word "possible" in two different senses here, "theoretically possible" versus "actually possible", otherwise this doesn't make sense.
It is impractical to go out for Chinese and go out for a hamburger for dinner.
It is impossible to get married and to take vows at a monastery at the same time of one's life.
Can you do a video on the world mission society church of God ?
Probably a better topic for Ready to Harvest
Could you make a defense video of Gavin Ortland🙏🏻he has been slandered
Oh no! Can you be more specific?
Slander is a grave accusation. Where's your evidence?
People DO FORGET JIMMY! SIN is SIN! Mortal, Venial, I
don't get it.
You're right that all sin is grievous. But murdering someone is very different than stealing a piece of candy. It's a pretty easy distinction to make.
“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”
1 John 5:16-17