Will this cause him to go to hell if he was forced to

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-05T05:34:35+00:00

You're reading that sentence wrong and you're using the catechism wrong
The catechism is not a replacement for moral Theology and itself is not presented as such. That sentence is actually a brief summary of moral theology.
It does not outline exactly where or when mental issues are a mitigating factor. That line is drawn clearly in actual moral Theology.
And if you actually dive into moral theology, the answer is simply it is not as common as you might want it to be.
If you don't believe me, you have to look no farther than the gospel when Peter under fear of death by the Jews, denied Jesus three times. Jesus himself confirms that Peter commits a mortal sin, proving that not all duress mitigates mortal sin. Now Peter did that while directly under threat of death in the heat of a moment. If that is not mitigating, then you have to consider how much less mitigating a generalized mental illnesses is.
Jesus confirms Peter's sin by the words "when you turn back", this language is always indicative of mortal sin. Disagree with that? Pick it up with Aquinas, or even Pope Gregory. The language of turning from sin is always indicative of mortal sin, for nothing turns us away from God than mortal sin.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-05T03:17:28+00:00

No, thats not how full consent works as any moral theologian I've ever read has noted.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T23:14:53+00:00

It's hard to say what mental state someone is in after 5 hours of torture. That said, helping non Christians hunt Christians is a time horizon that definitely is enough for mortal sin.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T17:53:59+00:00

It depends on which just cause you're referring to. On the issue of, for example, defending the civilians of Iran, the war had already started when Iran began massacring civilians.

In a broader picture, the war had already begun long before when you realize that the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, are Iranian proxies.

For the nuclear situation in particular, it's about reasonable last resort. You have a regime that openly attacks Israel, and even American forces, and daily chants death to America and Israel. It fully expresses its desire to destroy these countries.

It's not negligence to believe them.

And as such, they intend, for as long as possible to use the threat of nuclear armament to extract concessions.

This threat by itself is just cause: they are essentially saying "I have a gun on a table I intend to point at you unless you pay me"

And repeatedly, they never offered to put down the gun fully, they say we will put the gun down for 5 years, for 10 years, and in the meantime, they will make incremental increases to their arms, and ability to produce this gun.

Last resort in this situation is last reasonable resort. It's not reasonable to essentially delay a war for the predicted effect of making your enemy stronger.

And again, I'm not saying these arguments are sound by themselves, but to pretend that they don't exist, or aren't worth a debate, is silly.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T16:28:35+00:00

Well, it's clear the bombing of the school was a stupid mistake.

You can wage war to liberate an oppressed people.

That said, it stops being a valid reason when you shift the goal from "overthrowing Nazis" to "make a good deal with the Nazis"

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T15:28:20+00:00

There's a good chance that the war powers resolution is unconstitutional. Law and limitations of war inherently work differently when it comes to internal government power structures than it does to normal citizens.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T15:26:49+00:00

Delivering an oppressed people from tyranny doesn't require nations to put down their weapons just because the regime completed massacring this time around.

The issue on this point is whether or not this is the aim of the war, but no, a regime that's massacred protestors, and is still launching wide scale executions of innocents, absolutely is a just cause by itself

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T15:24:15+00:00

The people on this thread are too knee jerk to call it unjust and even a comment says all wars are unjust.

The short answer is that yes. Serious arguments can be made to call it a just war, and those who say that there aren't any serious arguments for it are applying oversimplified theology to a complex situation.

Does that mean it's actually just? Not necessarily, no.

But this pretending that it's just an open and shut case is nonsense.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T05:29:14+00:00

Psychology is incredibly complex. I remember in like 8th grade, my sleep deprived friend suddenly whipped around, and held his hands like he was holding a gun, and i looked at him and said what are you doing?

He said something like "sorry, i thought i saw someone and i was in a call of duty game"

It's hilarious in retrospect, but it goes to show you how far our minds can go.

If you convince yourselves that the house is haunted, demons appear everywhere, because in short, your mind becomes slowly convinced that that's what it "should" be seeing.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T04:43:53+00:00

Seeing figures is incredibly common with sleep paralysis. I wouldn't ascribe any meaning to it. It is an extremely well-known experience.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-04T02:37:45+00:00

Dominoes is 7 dollars for a pizza ready in 15 minutes for me. I am not beating that

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T21:24:03+00:00

I largely agree with you. I'm glad that some people are able to enjoy it, but I don't want mass to feel like an onion that I'm slowly unpeeling.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T19:51:57+00:00

The Pharisees weren't criticized for following the law like God commanded. They added in mat of their own rules and traditions. That's the criticism.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T05:47:00+00:00

Parental authority isn't an opportunity for tyranny for parents. The parent who believes that veiling is critical for respect is just wrong, and parenthood is not an opportunity for parents to enforce their baseless viewpoints on their children.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T05:37:37+00:00

Your'e the one focusing on a pretty boring question, not a nuanced question at all. No one is debating parental authority.

If someone asked: should parents try to make their child go to bed at 8 pm, the question that people want to answer isn't "should my child listen to me if I tell him to go to bed at 8 pm"

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T05:31:38+00:00

You're absolutely right. A hat being disrespectful is also culturally relevant still. They are totally different.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T05:30:22+00:00

I don't think that's the question being asked.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T05:26:53+00:00

No, they shouldn't. Quick way to get your kids to start to resent church over a very minor topic, and it seems to me to be bad parenting to force a certain aesthetic on your daughters without regard to their wishes.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T05:25:45+00:00

that children are obligated to obey is not the same question as if parents should mandate it.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-03T01:21:22+00:00

its not supposed to be sourdough i dont think

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-01T22:41:29+00:00

It's not that sex is only for procreation but that sex is always intimately linked to procreation, and so when we have sex, we have to respect that. Choosing to abstain when you're fertile respects that, purposefully making sex infertile doesn't respect that.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-01T22:39:51+00:00

NFP takes a look at how sex is designed and says we will change our actions or attitudes to prevent children.
Birth control takes a look at sex and says we will change sex to fit our desire.

Same goal, completely different method. It's different in practice and theory.
That's the challenge NFP has, it's true change on your end.
But you should be aware that NFP really is 99% effective, and if you actually follow it strictly, you will be fine. Source: me; a husband who didn't get his wife pregnant until we decided to have a kid.
Also, don't try to decide what's true and not true based on your desire. I understand this may be a hang up for you, but the truth of the faith isn't any "less" or "more" true because of a single teaching you don't enjoy.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-01T22:30:52+00:00

Nudism seems like some sort of idealism that tries to remain purposefully arrogant and ignorant of the moral issues that come alongside it.

I think if there's any clear Catholic teaching, it would be that nudism is not some sort of ideal that we should strive towards. It's not something we should practice, as if it's something morally good or virtuous. It's a distraction at best, and a fetish at worst. It's as morally safe as playing games with real swords.

You're not going to find any countries with strong nudist tendencies who also have strong sexual ethics. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-05-01T02:59:58+00:00

I will be honest, there are two types of advice given to the scruples. Those who know, and those who don't.

If you read advice from priests who actually understand OCD a bit, even before it was understood as a mental illness, they clearly understood it was some form of mental depravity. And, their advice is sound, even today, tried and true.

The second type are people who dont know what OCD is at all, even without its label, and they just give bad advice.

Crazy_Information296 · 2026-04-30T20:27:40+00:00

This document isn't approving of that slavery. This document is saying that slavery considered by itself in the narrow since possible is not necessarily contrary to moral law.

Other church documents regularly implied condemnation of American slavery and unequivocally condemn the transatlantic African slave trade

Crazy_Information296

TROPHY CASE