In other words, when does association with public sinners become itself a sin or make you a participant in others' sins? Association is not one of the 9 ways of participating in others' sins : 1. By counsel 1. By command 1. By consent 1. By provocation 1. By praise or flattery 1. By concealment 1. By partaking 1. By silence 1. By defense of the ill done

From the Catechism of Pope St. John Paul the Great: > §2521 Purity requires *modesty*, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. But according to playwright Alan Bennett, "All modesty is false modesty; otherwise, it wouldn't be called modesty". This paradoxicality can be seen in the self-refuting nature of the sentence "I am humble". How would a Catholic moral theologian justify modesty in light of its paradoxicality?

As far as I can tell, Christians are morally obligated to stay faithful to their beliefs at any cost, even under pain of martyrdom. However, what if it's someone else's life at stake? For example, if someone holds an innocent bystander at gunpoint and threatens to kill them unless you worship a false god, what do the Church or Scripture have to say about this?

If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

In many ethical and philosophical systems, a morally good action—such as a doctor inventing a cure for tuberculosis and saving countless lives—is considered unquestionably good. However, in Christian theology, particularly within Protestant and Catholic traditions, I’ve read that "good works" are not just about doing good things, but also involve faith, grace, and the right intention before God. Ephesians 2:8–10 speaks of salvation by grace through faith, followed by a calling to do “good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Similarly, James emphasizes that faith without works is dead, yet the works seem to be expected as a fruit of living faith—not merely outward moral actions. My question is: **If a person does something objectively good (like curing a disease) but does not do it out of Christian faith or for God’s glory, does Christian theology still regard that as a "good work"?** How do major Christian traditions (especially Protestant and Catholic) interpret such acts? I’m not asking whether the act is socially or ethically beneficial, but whether it qualifies as a “good work” in the theological sense—something pleasing to God or meritorious in any way. Citations from Scripture, Church Fathers, or confessional documents (like the Catechism or Reformed confessions) would be helpful.

According to [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_divorce) , many Christian denominations, including Eastern Orthodoxy and various Protestant churches around the world, permit remarriage after divorce. This appears to directly contradict several Bible verses such as Luke 16:18 (NRSVA): > Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. On what grounds do these denominations permit remarriage, despite this?

According to the Natural Law why is it wrong for infertile people to engage in nonreproductive sex acts? For example, what if a woman is too old to get pregnant, lacks necessary reproductive organs, is in an infertile period of her menstrual cycle, or is already pregnant? What would be wrong with such women engaging in unnatural sex acts with their husbands? How is this contrary to the reproductive end of sex?

Yesterday I was debating the topic with my Progressive Christian friend who claimed that the Lord was a refugee. Was Jesus Christ, by definition, a refugee?

Are Catholics allowed to read and/or own books that attack Catholicism or argue in favor of other religions without permission, even if it is for a legitimate reason like strengthening their faith? I was reading an old moral theology book but I'm not sure exactly what it meant and if it was just talking about books that were on the Index of Forbidden Books. For example, a quote from John McHugh and Charles J. Callan, OP's *Moral Theology* (1929) [§849-§866. Dangerous Reading](https://archive.org/details/moraltheology0001john/page/320/mode/2up) : > **849. Dangerous Reading.**—There is a threefold prohibition against the reading of literature dangerous to faith. > > - (a) The *natural law forbids* one to read or hear read written matter of any description which one knows is dangerous to one’s faith, even though it is not dangerous to others and not forbidden by the law of the Church. For a similar reason one may not keep such material in one’s possession. Example: Titus and Balbus read the letters of a friend on Evolution. Titus finds nothing unsound in the letters, and is not troubled by reading them; but they fill the mind of Balbus with doubts and perplexities, as the subject is above him. This reading is naturally dangerous for Balbus, but not for Titus. > >- (b) The *law of the Church forbids* the use of certain kinds of writings or representations dangerous to faith (Canon 1399), as well as of those *individual* writings that have been denounced to the Holy See and placed on the Index, or forbidden by other ecclesiastical authorities. > >- (c) The law of the Church also *pronounces ipso facto excommunication* against those who make use of works written by unbelievers in favor of their errors (Canon 2318). > > [... omitted: the rest of the "Dangerous Reading" section (§850 to §866) which covers in great detail every aspect and every term mentioned in §849, such as §862 that spells out what "use" exactly means in §849c]

Does the Catholic Church or any particular Catholic dioceses forbid the reading of [J. K. Rowling's](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling) series of books known as [Harry Potter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter) ? This same question could be applied to the movie series based on these same books. If so what are it’s theological and moral reasons for doing so. We know that there are some Catholic schools that have forbidden these books in the libraries of some Catholic Independent Schools. However I am interested if this is the case at any diocesan level or higher? Or does the Church leave such decisions about reading these books and/or watching the movies at the discretion of the individual or even the local pastor? [Harry Potter books removed from school library because they contain 'real' curses and spells](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/harry-potter-banned-school-library-nashville-tennessee-exorcist-a9087676.html)

I am not so sharp on Theology, but I want to present to you something that I have been thinking about. God clearly says when something is bad and we shouldn’t do it. But God also said He hates divorce, meaning its some kind of evil, because God hates evil. Now, if God hates evil, why would He approve of doing it? Not just “allow” it in the sense that He gave us free will, because in that, it makes sense. In that point, God doesn’t allow x but because of free will, He lets it happen. But in the case of divorce or polygamy, God hated these because they are evil in His sight. The thing is, He didn’t say “its wrong and you shouldn’t do it, but since you have a free will, you can choose to or not to do it. But regardless, its still wrong” He didn't say that in polygamy or divorce. He allowed a form of it (regulated) even if He hates it and sees it as evil. So when we do it, its like “it's okay, as long as you are following the regulations”. So that goes against Him that He can’t view evil, yet He allows it (meaning He doesn’t count it as a sin). However, I’ve seen some answers like: “God doesn’t approve of divorce nor of polygamy, but because it still persists, its better to regulate it to minimize harm” By that logic, why can’t we just allow sins altogether because we continually sin, yet God bans it outright? And if God doesn’t approve of it morally, yet continues to do it anyway (by actually stating that we can do it and there is no sin in us if we do), then is He immoral because He goes against what He deems evil?

If a woman does not reach the climax in the marital act at the time when the husband achieves it (he achieves it before she does), is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated (by herself or her husband) until she achieves it? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

According to Catholic moral theologians, does voting for a pro-abortion candidate constitute formal cooperation in the politician's crime of promoting child killing? My question is very similar to "Does the Catholic Church teach that it is sinful to vote for a pro-abortion politician? ", but I am more interested whether such an action is formal or material cooperation .

Note that my question is asking about married couples, not just any two people engaging in intercourse. According to the Catholic Church, would a husband in wife be in sin if they committed any of the following acts: 1. Anal sex 2. Oral sex (Manual sex) 3. Sex during pregnancy with knowledge of that pregnancy. 4. Sex after menopause. The reason I ask for these is because it seems that birth control is immoral since it leaves out the openness to life. So what about these circumstances? Also, perhaps one could add whether or not these are mortal or venial sins?

I am not a Christian. In a second-hand bookshop I often visit, there are many Bibles for sale. These books are mostly in Chinese and Korean, sometimes English, piling up meters high (maybe 200 prints or more). The bookshop owner says many Chinese and Korean believers sold (or sometimes donated) them to him, and he re-sells them at ￥50-100 each. I am curious, from a religious view, is it legal to sell the Bible to an apparent non-believer bookshop? As far as I know, Bibles are given **freely** to believers in where I live (in China). Does it make any difference, whether the Bible is acquired free, and whether it is sold or donated (either way the bookshop owner will finally sell them at a price, he will not donate anything for sure)? I believe it will be not very moral if I take one for free and sell it to a bookshop for money. P.S. In contrast, the Buddhist temple of my city also gives out propaganda books/leaflets for free. It usually prints "to achieve maximum merits, please don't discard; if you no longer need it, give it to another believer", indicating selling is not approved. And I seldom see free Buddhist books sold in that bookshop. Also, some Islam sites say selling Arabic or donated Quran to non-muslims is prohibited too. From the below answer, it seems Christianity really has a different tolerant view on this issue.

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?

In the New Law, is the death penalty for sodomy (or other sins of lust, like fornication or adultery) a proportionate punishment? In other words, do Catholic theologians say legislators are morally permitted to write a law requiring the death penalty for homosexual or other acts of lust? Under the Old Law, Lev 20:13 did proscribe sodomy with capital punishment. cf. this post to the CathInfo thread "What Trump policies show he is pro-abortion or pro-sodomy? "

From what I understand, St. Augustine had a "common-law wife" (concubine) who bore him a child. He abandoned them to pen theology. Was this considered honorable by the Catholic clergy?

Is it okay to abort a baby when the continuation of the pregnancy may result in the death of his or her mother, according to Catholicism?

Among the religious organizations and sources that discourage blood consumption, do any extend the principle to hemolymph, the equivalent of blood in creatures such as locusts and oysters? While organizations that require a kosher diet would prohibit shellfish already, even kosher diets include locusts, so this question is applicable to any denomination or other source that discourages blood consumption.