those weird parts of the Summa

Article 1: Whether collecting busty anime figurines is sinful?

Objection 1: It would seem that the exaggerated features of these figurines may lead to sinful thoughts or actions, conflicting with Christian ideals of purity and modesty. Therefore, collecting busty anime figurines is a sin against chastity.

Objection 2: Owning and displaying of representations of these fictional characters might be considered an externalization one’s escapism into fantasy. Such puerile and decadent behavior is ultimately harmful to that person’s flourishing. The Philosopher writes (Ethic. IX): “The happy life is thought to be virtuous…and does not consist in amusement.” Therefore, collecting busty anime figurines is opposed to virtue.

Objection 3: Additionally, some may argue that the allocation of financial resources for the acquisition of such figurines could be better spent on charitable endeavors. Therefore, the possession of busty anime figurines is a sin against charity.

Objection 4: It seems that the public display of busty anime figurines may be morally
irresponsible, as it could potentially scandalize others or contribute to a culture of lust. Our Lord says (Matthew 18:6): “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Therefore, owning busty anime figurines is a grave sin against charity.

Objection 5: One might argue that public display could lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation, causing harm to one's reputation or relationships. Therefore, owning busty anime figurines is a danger to one’s name.

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    On the contrary, scripture shows that the female body is not a shameful thing. It is written (Canticles 7:6-7): “How beautiful art thou, and how comely, my dearest, in delights! Thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.”

    I answer that: collecting busty anime figures could be seen as a form of harmless entertainment or appreciation of artistic expression, distinct from promoting inappropriate behavior. So long as we do not allow such things to be our primary source of happiness, there is no harm any hobby, so long as it does not contradict Christian principles

    Reply to Objection 1: Responsible collectors can exercise self-discipline and discernment, ensuring that their hobby remains within the bounds of moral decency, avoiding actions that contradict Christian principles. The Apostle writes (Titus 1:15): “All things are clean to the clean: but to them that are defiled, and to unbelievers, nothing is clean: but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.”

    Reply to Objection 2: Solomon writes (Ecclesiastes 3:1): “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” It is only sinful to prioritize superfluous activities over virtuous activities. Rather than strictly condemn activities possibly considered “immature,” it is better to diminish the importance of such activities in favor of more virtuous pursuits.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reply to Objection 3: If one can afford these figurines without compromising essential needs or charitable contributions, their possession may be considered morally permissible. The Apostle says (Philippians 4:5): “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.”

      Reply to Objection 4: Public display becomes morally questionable when it is likely to cause scandal or contribute to a culture of lust. Practicing discretion and sensitivity in choosing when and where to display such figurines is essential to avoid potential harm. So writes the Apostle (1 Coronthians 8:9): “But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak.”

      Reply to Objection 5: While concerns about reputation and relationships are valid, the responsible use and display of these figurines should not inherently damage one's standing in the community. Communication and understanding with others can help mitigate potential misunderstandings. Our Lord says (Matthew 7:1): “Judge not, that you may not be judged.”

      wtf i didn't know aquinas was schway

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reply to Objection 3: If one can afford these figurines without compromising essential needs or charitable contributions, their possession may be considered morally permissible. The Apostle says (Philippians 4:5): “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.”

    Reply to Objection 4: Public display becomes morally questionable when it is likely to cause scandal or contribute to a culture of lust. Practicing discretion and sensitivity in choosing when and where to display such figurines is essential to avoid potential harm. So writes the Apostle (1 Coronthians 8:9): “But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak.”

    Reply to Objection 5: While concerns about reputation and relationships are valid, the responsible use and display of these figurines should not inherently damage one's standing in the community. Communication and understanding with others can help mitigate potential misunderstandings. Our Lord says (Matthew 7:1): “Judge not, that you may not be judged.”

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So is Aquinas' stuff just like the Talmud for Catholics or what

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics don't take Aquinas to be 100% authoritative like israelites do to the Talmud. Noticeably he disagreed with the idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary which has since been formalized as an infallible part of Catholic dogma.

      The Catholic Talmud would be pic related.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Jews don't take the Talmud as totally authoritative either, a lot of it is rabbis disagreeing with each other lol. And I don't think the Trent Catechism is definitive for Catholics, that seems to be more of a trad thing. The current catechism is closer but also not definitive.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no lol it's a slow, deep, systematic work. It goes all through theology going from the first principle (God) to creation, to an analysis of man and then the acts of man, then to Revelation and the Church... it's fantastic and built for memorization. Everyone loves to talk about St Thomas but nobody actually reads the Summa.

      Maybe something like the decretals and commentaries on it would be closer to the Catholic Talmud.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Nobody actually reads the summa
        Because it's absurdly long, three times the length of the Bible, and Aquinas' favorite writer is clearly Aristotle. 200 pages of Aristotle is a lot to process, the Summa is 5000 pages by Aristotle's #1 fan. That's not meant to be a detraction, it's just a lot. I was looking for a copy on an online Catholic bookstore and the Summa version I was eying was under the category "gifts for priests."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Its by far the easiest philosophy book ever written though, you can really breeze through it without difficulty

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just get the Summa of the Summa. Which brings those 4000+ pages down to a selection of 500 pages of the most important stuff. Yeah, it might bother you if you're a completionist, but it's better than not having read the Summa at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            pleb

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Aquinas was the first (crypto)prot

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      he is *the* common doctor. in a sense, we are all Thomists.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Article 2: Whether Gooning Can Be Considered a Sin?

    Objection 1: It seems that gooning, understood here as an excessive indulgence in the visual or imaginative stimuli leading to heightened states of sensory pleasure, is sinful. For it is written, "One should use the things of this world as if one did not use them" (1 Corinthians 7:31), and thus, excessive indulgence seems contrary to the divine precept.

    Objection 2: Further, St. Augustine himself states that anything leading to intemperance is sinful. Since gooning leads to a lack of self-control and indulgence in base pleasures, it would appear to be a direct path to sin.

    Objection 3: Moreover, the act of gooning, by focusing on temporal and often vulgar content, distracts the soul from the contemplation of the divine and the pursuit of virtuous living, thereby steering it towards sin.

    On the contrary, gooning, in its essence, represents a profound engagement with the beauty of creation. Just as one may be moved by a sunset or a symphony to feelings of awe, so too can the intricate dance of visual stimuli lead to a state of appreciation and wonder. If all things are made by the divine, then is not this immersive experience merely a form of prayer, a deep meditation on the works of the Creator?

    I answer that, To deem gooning inherently sinful would be to oversimplify the rich tapestry of human experience. As The Philosopher himself differentiated between the natural and the unnatural, between what leads us towards virtue and what leads us away, so must we consider the context and intent of gooning.

    Firstly, if gooning is approached with temperance, not as an end but as a means to marvel at the wonders of creation, it can be a path to virtue. The appreciation of beauty, in all forms, lifts the soul to God. As long as the act is not detached from the moral compass, it remains within the bounds of virtue.

    Secondly, the intent behind the act is crucial. If the individual engages in gooning with a mind towards understanding or appreciating the complex interplay of human emotions and aesthetic sensations, it may indeed foster a deeper connection with the human condition and thus, indirectly, with the divine.

    However, it must be acknowledged that like all earthly pleasures, gooning carries the risk of excess. The virtue lies in moderation and in the integration of the experience into a life lived according to moral and spiritual principles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reply to Objection 1: While scripture advises us to use the world's goods without becoming attached, it does not condemn the righteous appreciation of beauty and pleasure. It is the attachment, the substitution of divine love with earthly pleasure, that constitutes sin, not the act of appreciation itself.

      Reply to Objection 2: True, intemperance is a sin, but not all engagement with pleasure leads to intemperance. It is the excess, not the act itself, that St. Augustine condemns. A moderated, mindful approach to gooning, therefore, escapes the charge of sin.

      Reply to Objection 3: The diversion of the soul from divine contemplation is a danger inherent in all earthly pleasures. However, if one's engagement with gooning deepens one's appreciation for life's complexity and beauty, it could instead be seen as an adjunct to divine contemplation, not a detraction from it.

      Therefore, while gooning, like all actions, can lead to sin if approached with the wrong intent or indulged in excessively, it is not inherently sinful. Like all aspects of human experience, it must be navigated with wisdom, moderation, and a heart aimed towards the good.

      i laughed. well done

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reply to Objection 1: While scripture advises us to use the world's goods without becoming attached, it does not condemn the righteous appreciation of beauty and pleasure. It is the attachment, the substitution of divine love with earthly pleasure, that constitutes sin, not the act of appreciation itself.

      Reply to Objection 2: True, intemperance is a sin, but not all engagement with pleasure leads to intemperance. It is the excess, not the act itself, that St. Augustine condemns. A moderated, mindful approach to gooning, therefore, escapes the charge of sin.

      Reply to Objection 3: The diversion of the soul from divine contemplation is a danger inherent in all earthly pleasures. However, if one's engagement with gooning deepens one's appreciation for life's complexity and beauty, it could instead be seen as an adjunct to divine contemplation, not a detraction from it.

      Therefore, while gooning, like all actions, can lead to sin if approached with the wrong intent or indulged in excessively, it is not inherently sinful. Like all aspects of human experience, it must be navigated with wisdom, moderation, and a heart aimed towards the good.

      >Therefore, while gooning, like all actions, can lead to sin if approached with the wrong intent or indulged in excessively, it is not inherently sinful.
      I foresee the vatican II church actually putting out an statement like this sometime soon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        but fortunately bro michael dimond will make a 3 hour documentary exposing the demonic possession of gooners

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I’m an Orthodox-phile Anglican, not a sede.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't understand why anyone would voluntarily be an Anglican. They just mashed up prot and cath stuff as a political project and then made up "branch theory" to get everyone else to pretend that there's more to it than that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I’m Anglican because I’m Orthodox and I think conservative Anglicanism is the valid rite for my ethnos.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            doing backbends to avoid Rome I see

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At least we still have traditional-style high mass.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reply to Objection 1: While scripture advises us to use the world's goods without becoming attached, it does not condemn the righteous appreciation of beauty and pleasure. It is the attachment, the substitution of divine love with earthly pleasure, that constitutes sin, not the act of appreciation itself.

    Reply to Objection 2: True, intemperance is a sin, but not all engagement with pleasure leads to intemperance. It is the excess, not the act itself, that St. Augustine condemns. A moderated, mindful approach to gooning, therefore, escapes the charge of sin.

    Reply to Objection 3: The diversion of the soul from divine contemplation is a danger inherent in all earthly pleasures. However, if one's engagement with gooning deepens one's appreciation for life's complexity and beauty, it could instead be seen as an adjunct to divine contemplation, not a detraction from it.

    Therefore, while gooning, like all actions, can lead to sin if approached with the wrong intent or indulged in excessively, it is not inherently sinful. Like all aspects of human experience, it must be navigated with wisdom, moderation, and a heart aimed towards the good.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >peeping thomists
      funny

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    imagine thinking you’re hot shit because you passed an examine on Aristotle’s writings on “hearing”

    >OoOoOoOoOHhHhHHHHhhhHhHhHH IM LISTENNNOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGG

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *