But the lesson is that what might appear to be a suicide is not, despite strong appearances to the contrary, and learning additional information can change the results.
By the same token, the act of suicide itself might appear to be a mortal sin, but learning additional information may change the result. In this case, it’s the psychological information that takes suicide out of the realm of mortal sin.
A sin is mortal if it is a grave matter, committed with full advertance of the will, after suitable reflection and the understanding that the contemplated act is a mortal sin.
We now understand that most suicides are not calmly assessing the deed, but are driven to the act by circumstances that overbear their will.
So the rules did not change – the understanding of what happened in particular cases changed.
So does the Catholic Church hold a suicide that is driven by mental illness to be a different thing than a suicide driven by, say, overwhelming guilt that is not a result of mental illness? In other words, are some suicides mortal sins while others are not?
ETA Upon re-reading, I suppose that is what you are saying.
I say, “I think,” because the Cathechism, § 1445, says “The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome into his.”
But it’s not clear to me if you mean “certain types of sin,” or “certain specific sins.” In other words, do you mean “adultery,” in general or “Ed’s banging that waitress in Atlanta when he was at the sales convention?”
Yes. Some are mortal sins, some are not. There are precious few that are, because even overwhelming guilt can overbear the will and remove the necessary full advertance.
Here is the relevant section of the catechism (bolding mine):
"Suicide
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
**Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. **"
Bricker, not interested in looking at your 17 page PDF. What I would expect a global charity like the MoC to do is to release an annual report+ financial statements with the following figures:
Total global donations, donations by country, percentage of expenses on admin, percentage of expenses on missionary activities, percentage of expenses on medical supplies, percentage on food, rent, electricity, staff salaries total cost etc, balances carried over from previous years and total value of real estate holdings. Annual report should summarise what are their areas of focus in the last year, new missions, focus for next year etc etc. I would expect the same from any charity that takes in more than $20 million a year in donations, whether they are religious or secular.
Here you can see what Greenpeace releases. I only picked them because they were the first charity I can think of with large multinational presence that you’d be familiar with.
Again, if they have nothing to hide, what possible reason is there not to release these figures? And if they don’t know the figures, because they are so disorganised and have no proper accounting system as several of my links alleged well thats called “mismanagement of funds” and at the very least is a reason not to donate to them, at worst its fraud.
Calling Greenpeace a charity is a stretch to say the least.
I agree that more transparency would be great, but it’s not a issue for those actually contributing to it or working for them. At least for the MoC here in Peru I can see that there isn’t any frivolous money being spent in Galaxy S7 for all or things like that.
I also undestand that any for many, who would never contribute a penny, any money that isn’t spent on care is mismanaged. Ditto if it is.
It’s fun that those who have the biggest problems are the one who don’t actually give money or support what they do.
PS: Can someone please change the title from Abanian to Albanian?
I’m using Charity / NGO non profit to mean the same thing as far as expectations for their legal obligations of disclosure. And how do you know anything about my giving or not giving to charities? Anyone that wants to help the poor in India, I’d recommend donating to Responsible Charity, which is a secular charity explicitly set up by someone that worked for the MoC and was appalled by their practises. All their finances are public of course.
Well the article is a self-serving interview which doesn’t correspond to my personal experience or that of others. It is not an article I would take seriously, the interviewer got tired of all the softball he was throwing. An article so openly aggressive to religion cannot be taken at face value, especially since the interviewed is pushing his own, rival charity.
I commend their financial reports.
Ok then what about all the other articles already posted in this thread talking about questionable practises by MoC. Are they all just “aggressive to religion?”
And again, why not publish the financials? If they have nothing to hide then it should be easy and the vast majority of charities and NGO’s do this.
so of binding and loosing refers to absolution/forgiveness of sin, i am afraid i am still a bit confused. The church, through withholding of communion/forgiveness, determines what sins are mortal? If the church teaches, through catechism or whatever means at its disposal, that suicide is a mortal sin, is it? After all, what can be forgiven on earth can be forgiven in heaven, and what cannot be forgiven on earth will not be forgiven in heaven? If a priest (or the whole church)says this sin, whether adultery or specifically ed banging the waitress, THIS sin cannot be forgiven - can that person make it to heaven? Does the church 's teaching hold true in heaven as it does on earth?
Does any other order of the Catholic Church publish financials? I’m guessing that you might get some decent reports for certain dioceses in the US, but not for any group with an international reach. The Catholic Church has had a number of accounting scandals over the years and it’s unlikely that they’ve cleaned up their act.
More generally though, I have to agree with Bricker that most of the articles in the web about Mother Teresa range from lazy reporting to hatchet jobs. Even the decent article that I referenced on the previous page wasn’t a very deep treatment. Most have been pretty clueless: the atheist one you linked to on this page contains this gem for example: [INDENT]It was Mother Teresa’s own admission during an interview that more than 23,000 people had died in the halls of the particular home I had worked in, as if boasting at the figure and missing entirely the point of the enormous compilation of unnecessary deaths. [/INDENT] Look in the mirror dude. The home is basically a hospice. You know that. And I’m guessing you know that your readers do not. That’s a highly misleading way of framing the issue.
That said, MoC apparently has some problems with triage. I find it highly plausible that they have difficulty recruiting supervising nurses because professionals don’t want to put up with rinsed needles and the like. The Catholic Church runs many fine medical and educational establishments. They should conduct a review of MoC’s practices.
No none do that I know of, which is also pitworthy in my opinion. Here’s a suggestion, don’t want to to publish financials? Fine then, you lose your tax-free status, all income must be treated as taxable revenue, pay sales tax or VAT on all your purchases, pay land tax on all your property. Donations would cease to be tax deductible to the donor. Once they get their finances in order and start publishing financials then they get tax free status back again.
To be clear I support this for all charities and NGO’s, secluar or religious and no matter which religion is behind them. Why should any religion get a free pass on this?
The Catholic Church could deal with that within the US and British jurisdictions. I’m not sure whether requiring them to open up their international accounts is viable though. I’m not even sure how such a law would work, or rather I’m not sure how one could craft an non-onerous law requiring disclosure of international accounts that also could not be easily circumvented.
It shouldn’t be about requiring them to do it, or passing a law.
For quite some time now there have been allegations that the MoC mismanage their funds, failing to spend the vast sums they raise on anything resembling care for the poor and dying. This is against their interests and, crucially, against the interests of the poor and dying because it will have a downward pressure on revenues. If they are spending their revenues on the poor and dying then these allegations will be a barrier to their effective pursuit of their mission. Speaking personally as someone who does donate to third-world charities I am unlikely to choose MoC precisely because they cannot clearly show me how effectively they use the resources they have.
The Missionaries of Charity are free to decide that it is in their interests, and the interests of the poor and dying whom they serve, to publish a full and transparent set of accounts showing that the money they raise is in fact spent to care for the poor and dying. They have decided in fact that it is *not *in the interests of them or their beneficiaries to do so - that it would not effectively undo any downward pressure on revenues resulting from these allegations.
That’s their right of course. And one can imagine a variety of reasons for them reaching this decision. But it is fair, I think, to draw inferences (if not conclusions) from it.
By way of example, CAFOD have an open information policy which provides donors with very full information about their accounts, activities and impact. This web page is, frankly, an example to **all **charities. I particularly like their linking to independent evaluations which are critical of them. And I don’t see any reason at all why this would be beyond the Missionaries of Charity.
It will save more money than it costs to have proper accounting practises. How do you know if any mission or individual is stealing money if you have no proper accounts? How do you know how much funding each mission needs from the central HQ? Also there are many corporate donors that will only donate to charities with transparent accounting so you can expect their donations to go up if they did this. That is if they haven’t been hiding malpractice for many years.
And I have already provided an example of what my standard is, check greenpeace annual report and financial statements that I linked above.