(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said: Jerry, Really, I am not interested in arguing this point further, and I believe tha...
(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said:
Really, I am not interested in arguing this point further, and I believe that I have already made that clear. I suppose that you could say that I brought this questionning upon myself, as I made a flippant comment here.
I consider myself a good practicing Catholic. I have not always been that, but I am now, and have been for quite some time. I feel that I am fairly well instructed in the faith, with few holes regarding important matters. I do read and study regarding the faith, but have more interest in certain areas of the faith, than other areas. I don't see that there is anything wrong with that. Persons who have a comprehensive knowledge regarding the faith are our religious.
My logic regarding issues of the faith not known to an individual, comes not from myself, but from a Catholic deacon. I am simply a lay Catholic, and that is all.
Usually, I am not in the habit of bringing to mind in others their faith weaknesses, but if I saw someone seemingly about to "walk into a hole," I would try to alert the individual.
Do you realize that you are insisting that I open a hyperlink and read it?
If you're not interested in arguing the point, then please feel free to stop at any time. Each time you make more morally incorrect statements someone is obligated to respond to them: not so much to correct you, since you've made your intentions clear, but to help prevent others from being mislead by them.
It's not my intention nor my place to judge your actions or whether you are a "good Catholic" (whatever that might be) or not. I am simply responding to statements you are making here regarding the objective nature of certain behaviors; whether these correspond to your behavior is not of concern to me.
It is certainly normal for people to have greater interest in some topics than in others; in fact, there is no way any person can be an expert on all matters of the faith. However, when it comes to forming out consciences, our moral obligation trumps our interests. That is to say, when we become aware that certain things we do may be immoral we have an obligation to resolve the questions to the best of our ability -- not just to the extent we are interested.
Using the present topic for exmple: if your situation is such that you will not be engaging in intimate kissing in the foreseeable future, you have no immediate obligation to pursue the related questions. However, if you fail to do so before you sin in this activityi n the future, ignorance will not be a defense: even less so if you intentionally avoided doing so because you did not want to learn the truth than if you simply forgot. Why? Because the former is a more conscious and willful act than the latter.
I have no way of knowing what the deacon told you. Perhaps he gave you a simplified explanation (it is a complex topic), perhaps you have not recalled all the details, or perhaps you just didn't explain what you know very well. What IC an say is what you wrote in the prior response is not accurate. For anyone wishing to understand the place of conscience in morality, I recommend Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.), by Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J. Be sure to get the 2nd edition, which is reprinted and sold by TAN, and perhaps others. Another author took over for later editions and I am told they are neither as clear nor as accurate as those authored by Fr. Fagothey.