Hi everyone, Before I begin, I want to say that I have a scrupulous conscience and go to confession monthly. My husband purchased a DVD burner last week and he has copied DVD to DVD just for his use (making backup copies). Would it be a sin for me to duplicate workout DVDs and give (not sell) to my daughter who is strapped for money? What do you all think about this? Really, I don't understand why these machines are being sold - they are made to copy tapes and DVDs. I would never sell to my daughter, but just would like her to have some of the exercise DVDs that I paid for. Would you confess this? Would it be sinful?

-- maryann (maryann.parker@citigroup.com), January 07, 2004

Answers

Personally, I would not. Perhaps you could lend your DVDs to your daughter? (You can also find used ones cheaply on Amazon and eBay.)

I used to have a CD burner, but when my husband was making some updates to my computer and accidentally broke it, I didn't get another one. I found that it was too much of a temptation for me to download music and burn it onto a CD.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

Don't do it. When you purchase a CD or DVD you are free to make copies for personal use. Eg: you make a mixed tape for the car. Giving it to your daughter is another story. It does not matter if you are selling or giving, what matters is that your are 'distributuing' copied version. Anauthorized distribution is a crime. I think it is not that hard to see that it is stealing. Artistic and intellectual property may be harder to hammer down than material things but our society and our legal system have put a lot of thought into this particular issue and have come up with the conclusion that this is theft.

Just my bloated opinion

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

I am new to this board, but I found this question very intersting. It's an interesting thought whether copying it and giving that copy away would in a sense be stealing. I could be wrong, but it my humble opinion I think it would be fine, even though according to the law it might be. It's kind of a grey area when it comes to copyrights. On one hand you did purchase it and can do with it as you choose, but on the other you are disriputing copies that were not paid for. I think that sharing it with one person (a family member) would be completely different than duplicating it 20 times and giving it to all of your friends.

With that said, I would have no reservations about making the copy and sharing it like you are thinking.

But then again, I've been wrong before. :)

-- Ed Viviano (edv@lycos.com), January 07, 2004.

Maryann, your key words were, "... my daughter who is strapped for money".

If she really cannot afford to purchase a copy, and if you cannot afford to purchase a copy for her as a gift, and if she really needs this item for her health -- then I don't believe that God would regard your copying action as a sin.

Of course, if Dan Garon insists that I am wrong, maybe you can contact him by e-mail and arrange for him to send your daughter some spare cash?

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 07, 2004.

I'm afraid I have to side on the side that it would be a sin. When we purchase DVD's and such we are granted a license for personal/household use. We also can give the orginal to someone else. However, the laws state that we do not have the right to copy and distribute these to others, regardless of their financial health.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), January 07, 2004.

Hey Scoop,

One may not do evil in order that good may result. A bad situation cannot make a wrong action right. If you want more on this check out the Catachism starting at section 1749.

And by the way, if things are really, really, that bad then I would be happy to help.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

Oh, Boy;
I'm a detestable sinner now. I made a gift of several copied CD's this Christmas, which I thought was just a fantastic way to please the recipients. Hey, I even photocopied the covers, with their accompanying lists of tracks and photography. In the past I would tape music onto cassettes, same purpose.

I wasn't aware it was stealing. Yes, the concept is applicable, so who would dispute the honest opinions of my fellows in the forum?

If we think about it, lending a CD is also diishonest. Or a book. I think of all the books I loaned over more than 50 years! Some I loaned to priests, even. They were willing accomplices. I'm so sorry!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2004.

I do have a CD-DVD-burner , but I only use it as TV-VCR-CD-recorder instead of the old VCR & tape-recorder !! __ Actually (literally) recording from TV & Radio is a crime , but everyone does it , but strange enough they allow you to record & watch , but only in your own house (personal use) !! __ BTW , I'm only using RW-DVD & CD-RW , to record the music of my own band (rehearsals) and some TV- program , when I'm not home , and I still want to see that program !! __ I also copy , all my mails & personal documents as backup , is that wrong ??

But one thing is for sure , if someone would illegally copy the music of my band and sells it , I can catch that person , I see that person in court !!!!

Original Recorded CD or DVD bought in a shop , and you copy them & sell these copies , that's a crime against the law !!!!

I would never sell to my daughter, but just would like her to have some of the exercise DVDs that I paid for. Would you confess this? Would it be sinful?

What would you do , if you daughter was married or lived on her own , and she bought one ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 07, 2004.

You may only copy for your own use what you purchased from an authorized retailer. Otherwise its copyright violation, and now subject to criminal as well as civil penalties.

It is a sin as well, and objectively evil...no matter what, and who else is doing it.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 07, 2004.

I want to say that I have a scrupulous conscience and go to confession monthly.

Do you mean that you go to Confession monthly because you have a scrupulous conscience, or that you go to Confssion monthly in spite of that fact?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 07, 2004.

That seems a draconian way to see it, Pat. It cannot be ''evil'' if we don't do it intentionally for profit. ''Your own use'' means what you DO with it, doesn't it? Make it a gift to his daughter? EVIL? That I like! If that's evil, then what's good? Paying for a copy and THEN doing what you wish with it? Selling Laurent's recording is evil; not giving it away. Bootlegging is evil. You gotta control your scruples, Pat!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2004.

Hi Jake, I go monthly because I have been away from my Catholic Faith for many years and returned four years ago, and want to go once a month. I was going twice a month, but advised by my spiritual director to go once a month (I know that is recommended for teh scrupulous). I get very nervous when I go, and feel I must confess all sins incluing venial - and I know I have poor judgment in what is and is not mortal, that is why I feel I am scrupulous. maryann

-- maryann (maryann.parker@citigroup.com), January 07, 2004.

Gene,

I just wrote an article about this. Its my line of work. Even making copies to give away for free violates the law because many of these gift receivers would otherwise purchase it. It reduces market share to the holder of the copyright on the work.

I didn't make up the law, I'm just telling like it is. Sure, I have some scruples, but I also have some bad habits too that will be with me for a while longer...and I'm not worried.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 07, 2004.

I was going twice a month, but advised by my spiritual director to go once a month.

I've honestly never heard of a priest advising someone to go to Confession less often.

I get very nervous when I go

Totally normal.

and feel I must confess all sins incluing venial

If you are conscious of venial sins you should confess them.

and I know I have poor judgment in what is and is not mortal

For a sin to be mortal, it has to involve a serious matter (use the 10 Commandments as a guideline), and you must have commited it knowing it was sinful (consent of the will).

-- jake (j@k.e), January 07, 2004.

Maryann,

If your daughter can't afford to buy one, than I would say this isn't even close to a sin! I would have to compliment you for looking out for her health, like a Mom is suppose to do.

You are sharing what you have to help keep your daughter in some kind of shape so that she may (God willing)live a long healty life.

You are doing what a Mom should do(in my opinion).Don't get to sucked into the law thing! Rember its ok to kill a baby according to the same people that make the Law!

Pat,

"It reduces market share to the holder of the..."

Pat, this young lady can't afford to buy one, so how is this reducing market share? This is one that would never be bought!

How ironic, a Laywer talking about what is fair? What do you charge for a civil case 33 or 45 percent? and you have the gall to say what "reduces market share"?

-- - (David@excite.com), January 08, 2004.

David,

The copyright laws are quite moral. Lawyers can be moral too.

Some people have a higher sensitivity to discerning doing right from doing wrong. Some people rationalize whatever they can to justify selfish desires.

God bless,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), January 08, 2004.

I don't own a DVD or CD burner, so what I'm asking here may seem, well, stupid to those who do. I'm also not asking these questions in a confrontational manner, nor to condone any actions which might be illegal and/or sinful. 'K. Here goes:

Obviously these burners are readily available for purchase for anyone who wants one. The sole purpose of these appliances, as far as I know, is to make copies of DVDs and/or CDs. It's not as if these machines are meant to be used for one thing but can be rigged to enable the user to make copies of DVDs/CDs. What I'm getting at are these two thoughts/questions: If making copies of DVDs/CDs is illegal, why are these machines available to the public? If there is a legitimate use for these burners, could someone give me an example?

I'm sure many of us had - or still has - stereos with dual cassette tape decks. The purpose of those were to dub tapes, right? Many of those stereos even had a "high speed" function which enabled you to speed up the duplication process. I admit that I've both made copies of tapes for others and received tapes from others many times over in my teens when music ruled my life. It never occured to me that doing that was wrong - After all, the technology to do this was literally at my fingertips.

I guess my point is that "the powers that be" know exactly what you're going to use this technology for. Is there a push from the recording industry to get these machines off the market?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 08, 2004.

Making copies of pre-existing DVD's and CD's is not the sole function of such hardware. They have many valid uses such as backing up hard drives, storing archived information, etc. Anyone who does a lot of work with high resolution graphics generally needs storage space above and beyond what the built-in hard drive affords - either additional external hard drives, or CD/DVD storage. It's kind of like a storage closet in your home. You can use it to store all kinds of things - things that are legitimately yours, things you have borrowed, or things that you have stolen. The closet isn't good or bad. It's what you use it for that is good or bad.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2004.

Regina,

There are valid uses of them, one is that for data that needs to be backed up every day, a permanent copy can be made than can be stored and is immune to power surges, is cheap, etc. A second copy is that an owner (or licensee) can make a copy for themselves. This is particularly useful for people (like me) with children who use the CDs and scratch the heck out of them. One can let them use the copy, and destroy that, while keeping a master "safe" in a drawer away from them.

What IS illegal and immoral IMO is making a copy for someone else, while retaining your own. If you buy something you have the right to use ONE copy of it. Making copies and handing them out to others steals from the artist who made the original, giving him only one sale when they should have had two or three sales. I'm sure if you asked someone if their boss should pay them only half of what they are owed, they'd balk at that, but for some reason people don't mind depriving others of their effort.

I personally have downloaded songs off the internet, but later in reflection decided it wasn't worth it. Push come to shove, it really is stealing. One can listen to internet radio, and if you really like something, can always buy the CD.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 08, 2004.

Frank:
You have every right to your opinion. If you're convinced the above actions are sinful, don't commit any of them.
Imposing these scruples on the rest of us is not a Christian attitude, however, to me. When our Lord sent a disciple out to catch a fish; and paid the temple tax with the coin out of a fish's mouth, a scrupulous view would have been-- ''He had no right to that money. He is God, and absolutely knew whose lost coin it was. Why didn't He return it? (Or along those lines.)''

My view is, that ownership of the CD recording has changed hands at the time I paid good money for it. What takes place afterward is not even open to dispute; assuming I do not burn many copies for resale.

It's MARKETING of pirated copies which the law prohibits. If I bought a recording of Laurent's music and made fifty replicas of it for resale and sold it as my own creation, infringement or theft of intellectual property-- THAT would be immoral. But because I own the recording personally, I'm free to copy it and make a gift of my own copy. The record belongs to me by purchase.

Christ got His own financial wherewithal from a fish's mouth. The fish belonged to HIM. He sent that fish out in the sea to capture a lost coin. Was He unscrupulous? HARDLY. He had common sense and He used it as necessary. A good lesson for us all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

Hi Maryann,

For exercise videos/dvds, you might want to try

www.videofitness.com

it is a review site that also has an exchange (postage only)--I've never tried it, you have to register, but that may also be an option for you. They also have a section called "bargain watch" where they feature the cheapest place to buy something. Hope it helps.

As to the main question, there is no "license" per se for books, movies, cds, etc. like there are for computer software. It was long ago ruled legal (Betamax vs. someone (that's how old the ruling is) to tape shows off the TV for private rebroadcast at a later time.

Also, on every blank tape, cd, dvd etc. there is a small fee hidden in the price to compensate artists somewhat (though I don't know how it works as they have no way of telling whether the media will be used to copy something and whose it was or say record your notes for the great American novel). It is legal to sell used movies, cds, and books--the copyright laws were set up so that people would have access to knowledge, not that it would be kept in the hands of the few forever. That is also why we have libraries. Look at the copy of the "fair use" laws regards copyright--every library has one. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

Yes, you are supposed to ask permission before you make copies other than for yourself, but a problem arises when say for example, you cannot contact the author, or the publisher that owned the work (not so common nowadays with authors retaining copyright) has gone belly up and you can't get a copy without paying a lot of money on the used market--none of which goes to the original author by the way.

A lot of artists STILL have not put their records on CDs to purchase (probably because the record companies (who generally own the rights) won't do it. What happens when record players are no longer made?

And, even Bill Gates could not afford to buy every book, cd, or movie ever made--that is why copyright is as it is (and by the way, from what I've read the main reason it was extended to life of the author plus 50 years was because the early Mickey Mouse cartoons were about to go into the public domain, and the company squawked). Even postal laws back when the USPS was formed provided for the cheaper shipping of books and other educational media because of the importance of expanding knowlege, not restricting it. So, it is not wrong to loan books out.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 08, 2004.

Eugene,

First, I don't see how I imposed my scruples on YOU, I just said what I personally believe and do. You are free to do what your scruples dictate.

Second, how many "gifts" can you give before it becomes stealing? If you give one copy to someone who otherwise would have bought the CD is that o.k.? How about 10, or 100 or 1 million? Assuming you aren't charging anyone or marketing yourself, what is the point when it becomes unethical? Do you have the right to let anyone who wants to copy your CDs for free?

On the fish, I might not be remembering right, but I don't recall that the Bible said the coin came **from someone who lost it**. I'm rather suprised at what you are saying. Don't you think it's possible that this was a *miracle*? Do you think that at Cana when Jesus turned the water to wine that what really happened was his disciples stole existing wine from someone else? Where's your faith in the Lord?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 08, 2004.

Please remember: I said you have every right to your opinion. If you're convinced the above actions are sinful, don't commit any of them.

I think it's not so Christian to call it a sin. There's nothing so strict about copyright law that it has become a mandate for our personal morality. As for my faith in God, we'll allow that remark to pass. I frankly find that a trifle over the top, too.

You are on roll today: ''how many "gifts" can you give before it becomes stealing? If you give one copy to someone who otherwise would have bought the CD is that o.k.? How about 10, or 100 or 1 million?''

Is this a good premise? Firstly, who is to say how many sales are really lost because some freebies are out there? About 10? About 100?, a million? Who said the record was ever going to sell a million anyway, if I hadn't interfered with the open market? Secondly: Even if I made a dent; what's so sinful about it? This is hardly a concern to the distributors, as I said; as long as I'm not selling pirated copies in their territory. It's a judgment call.

As I stated emphatically: having paid my money to acquire the record, it becomes my property. What I choose to do with it could be immoral; or it could be perfectly harmless. As a private citizen I have NO obligation to prolong sales for a record company. I OWN my copy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

I'm afraid I must agree with Frank and Pat here. It is illegal to make a single copy and give it to anyone else - even a poor relative or child. This is not a matter for conscience or opinion, it's a legal fact that can result in fines and jail time if caught.

You can loan the original without sinning, but you can't copy it.

The law is quite clear, it's stealing and God's law is quite clear that stealing is sin.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 08, 2004.

If you are conscious of venial sins you should confess them.

Maryann, you were told the above, but it does not reflect what the Church teaches. It would have been proper if you had been told that you "may" confess venial sins. When someone says that you "should" confess them, it sounds obligatory. It is not obligatory. Only the confession of mortal sins is obligatory. You will be absolved of your venial sins, even if you don't confess them with specificity.

Moreover, venial sins can be forgiven outside of the Sacrament -- for example, in the Penitential Rite or in receiving Holy Communion at Mass, in the performing of mortifications or acts of charity, etc..

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 08, 2004.

Dear Dave:
I disagree with you and Frank and Pat. You are free to worry about it if that pleases you, but I won't.

As I argued before; I paid for the copy and I can give copies of my own recording. If I sell one, I break a law and I commit an injustice against the marketing company. But it is not ''stealing'' to copy my own CD and make a gift of the copy. I'm conscious of the fact this is something that can be abused endlessly. If it were, then stealing might be an apt judgment. Here we are splitting hairs on a subject very far removed from sin; and that's my conclusion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

Yes, "Scoop." Thank you for the clarification.

Maryann, I should have said that there's nothing stopping you from confessing venial sins, especially since we often need spiritual directioon from our Confessors if the sins involve a fault that we repeatedly fall into for whatever reason, or if they lead to more serious sins.

You need to go to Confesson when you are conscious of serious sin.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 08, 2004.

The law is quite clear, it's stealing and God's law is quite clear that stealing is sin.

It can only be "stealing" if (1) the owner/creator would be deprived of something that he would have possessed if not for the copying and (2) the owner/creator does not have an obligation under charity to the person receiving the copy. That is why an exception can be made for someone who is truly in need of the item but so poor that there would not have been a second sale anyway. The owner/creator, in that situation, (1) suffers no true loss and (2) has a debt of charity to the person receiving the copy.

In Catholic morality, we may surreptitiously "appropriate" things without payment (e.g., food, clothing, shelter) that don't belong to us but that we need for our survival. In this case the owner suffers a true loss (unlike the CD/DVD creator), but the loss must be tolerated because the right to private property is not absolute and total and the owner has a duty to be charitable to the impoverished.

As an extension of this principle, I believe that an owner/creator of a CD/DVD can easily tolerate the copying of his creation for the benefit of a truly needy person, especially since the owner/creator is not even suffering a loss and should even want to help the needy person in charity.

In most cases, though, Pat and Frank are right. (Sorry, Eugene. Please give generously to charity to make up for what you have done, and avoid doing it again.) A buyer has no right to make unnecessary copies of copyrighted "intellectual property" (including musical/artistic creations) to give away to people who don't need them or who could afford to purchase them.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 08, 2004.

But in some contries there is no copyright law, and there it isnt considering stealing... Our laws are made up by a right wing society, we are not stealing any material goods. We haven't taken anything by a company but making an illegal disk. I do not believe it to be stealing because the law says it is. If you are truely worried about this type of sin, you better not be whering anything made the children in poor countries (Shoes, etc) because it's a sin to make a child fall, which i believe can be seen as economic child slavery.

-- Steven Zimmer (spitfirexvi@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

wearing*

-- steven zimmer (spitfirexvi@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

I believe that an owner/creator of a CD/DVD can easily tolerate the copying of his creation for the benefit of a truly needy person, especially since the owner/creator is not even suffering a loss and should even want to help the needy person in charity

The thing is though Scoop, no one is "truly needy" for a Metallica CD. These items are ALL luxuries. If you want someone to have one, why not buy them their own copy? That would really show you care. To copy it for them is like a boss saying they are doing a good deed by ordering their employees to volunteer at a soup kitchen on the holidays.

Eugene,

As for my faith in God, we'll allow that remark to pass. I frankly find that a trifle over the top, too.

I'm just quite suprised. I consider you a very faithful person, from what I know about you here on the forum. Why do you think the coin that Jesus found had to come at the expense of someone else? Wasn't He OUR victim, and not the other way around?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 08, 2004.

I appreciate your input, Scoops. Even so, I have no need to compensate for what is not sinful. You also split hairs here: ''A buyer has no right to make unnecessary copies of copyrighted "intellectual property" (including musical/artistic creations) to give away to people who don't need them or who could afford to purchase them.''

I assumed no right; I stated a fact. I own the recordings. I have the God-given right (which supercedes copyright laws) to make a gift of these as long as the act is one of good will. Obviously, the gift isn't given to circumvent anybody's copyrights. I'm not dishonest.

The matter of legality can be a problem, I know. Do we flaunt a law simply as we please? I wouldn't. However, the sum value is negligible; there is no discernable victim at all. Before a lawsuit could be warranted, one would have to ignore demands to cease and desist on the part of an ''injured party.''

Furthermore, (and much more importantly,) we shouldn't give advice to fellow Catholics like ''Give generously to charity to make up for what you have done, and avoid doing it again,'' without knowing what we're talking about. Sin is a serious matter. In serious matters, we all know what we must do in conscience. I already gave generously to my friends of what God gave to me. Excellent music for their enjoyment!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

Eugene, I'm surprised. You mean if you wrote a book and every person who bought it made a copy of it and gave it away you wouldn't care?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 08, 2004.

Dear Frank:
Please forgive me; what's your point about Jesus and the coin?-- ''I'm just quite suprised. I consider you a very faithful person, from what I know about you here on the forum. Why do you think the coin that Jesus found had to come at the expense of someone else? Wasn't He OUR victim, and not the other way around?''

This is something of a non sequitur. I made a loose analogy, showing Christ considered a coin altogether insignificant in His scheme of things. He was totally correct. Just as a copied CD given for Christmas is insignificant; not a matter for striking our breasts about!

I have to laugh: ''I [Frank] consider you a very faithful person, from what I know about you here on the forum.'' -- And ? ? ? Now you think I'm unfaithful? My Gosh; why not ex- communicate Old Gene? He's a hopeless case! Ha ha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

Paul M. and Frank:

Thanks for your answers. It never occured to me that a legitimate use for these things would be making back-ups of your own computer stuff. I guess when I think of DVDs and CDs, I think "entertainment" (movies, music). Thanks again.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 08, 2004.

''Eugene, I'm surprised. You mean if you wrote a book and every person who bought it made a copy of it and gave it away you wouldn't care?''

-- GT /

GT, come down to earth, please. ''Every person.'' Do you know what sin is? A real sin? ONE person, not everybody,-- reproducing the book and selling it without paying for the rights. But people give away books every day, after reading them. Others read the same books for free. We are just a society of larcenous boys and girls, I guess!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

OFF TOPIC:

TO Eugene:

(Just a little joke)

Selling Laurent's recording is evil

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

BACK TOPIC:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 08, 2004.

Eugene,

I'll make you a deal: rather than continue on this for 50 posts, I'll just drop it. The fish thing isn't worth either of our time.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 08, 2004.

We're agreed on that! Lol! God bless you, Frank. May He grant you and yours a blessed 2004 and many more happy years.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

I believe that copying material like this is stealing. Within the Church herself material is copyrighted and sold. One diocese wouldn't simply take another diocese's material and reproduce it without either buying a license to do so or purchasing as many copies of the material as was necessary. The person who produces the work is entitled to be recompensed for the work produced, to take without making payment is denying a labourer his just wages, which as we all know is one of the seven deadly sins.

If it was me who had to decide what to do here I would simply loan the DVDs to my daughter, or share them with her.

Mind you, some would say I use any excuse to get out of exercising!

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 08, 2004.

Eugene, you didn't read my first post either, I guess.

The LAW provides for loaning, selling used items, making a copy for backup purposes, etc., (cassette tapes are notorious for getting "eaten"). But making and giving away copies is still wrong, and obviously you do not make your living in the creative arts and/or have never read about copyright law or you would see this. You must be old enough to know that many parishes got into legal trouble over copying music several years ago.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 08, 2004.

The thing is though Scoop, no one is "truly needy" for a Metallica CD.

If you are not willing to read the whole thread and understand my comments "in context," you are not eligible to criticize what I wrote. If you had read everything carefully, you would know that I have been conditionally approving only of the copying of Maryann's specific health-improving item for her impoverished child. (I said that it could be done only if neither Maryann and her child could not afford to buy a second copy, and if it was truly needed for her health.) My comments obviously would rule out copying "a Metallica CD."

I appreciate your input, Scoops. Even so, I have no need to compensate for what is not sinful.

I realize that, which is why I only spoke to you about what is an objectively sinful action. Now, if you didn't know that it was sinful until you read this thread, you don't have to confess it, but it would please God if you made some symbolic reparation for it.

I suspect, though, that you long ago heard that it is illegal (and thus sinful), but perhaps your "weak flesh" and desire to make a "new law" for yourself led you to rationalize doing what is wrong. If you really were perfectly innocent, though (due to ignorance), I apologize for suspecting that you were not.

I assumed no right; I stated a fact. I own the recordings.

No, you do not. You "own" only your copy of the recordings. The "creator" owns the "master copy," and normally he alone owns the right to copy (copyright) it for others. This is what you have not been seeing -- or you "saw" it, but ignored it.

I have the God-given right (which supersedes copyright laws) to make a gift of these as long as the act is one of good will. No, you do not. You have the right to give away your copy -- and you have the right to give away a second and third copy that you buy from the "creator" (directly or through retail). But you normally have no "God-given right" to make copies yourself to give away -- unless you have the creator's permission (which would usually entail sending him some compensation).

Obviously, the gift isn't given to circumvent anybody's copyrights. I'm not dishonest.

You may have been "dishonest." If you were aware of your legal and moral duties, then "the gift" was manufactured by you "to circumvent" the creator's copyright. The motivation for "giving" the gift is irrelevant. The act of copying is what is usually wrong.

... the sum value is negligible; there is no discernable victim at all.

Very incorrect. The creator is an obvious victim. Not only does he lose the amount you should have paid him for each copy you made, but he loses the amounts that OTHER law-breakers should have paid him. There could be hundreds or thousands of people doing exactly what you did. It could add up to a considerable loss to the creator. Then, those who received the illegal copies as gifts are able to make a second "generation" of illegal copies -- and these further damage the uncompensated creator. Clearly, you have not thought this through (or you have, but buried your realizations to allow for rationalizations).

Before a lawsuit could be warranted, one would have to ignore demands to cease and desist on the part of an "injured party."

True, and these "demands" were already present in the copyright laws, even before you purchased the original.

Furthermore, (and much more importantly,) we shouldn't give advice to fellow Catholics like "Give generously to charity to make up for what you have done, and avoid doing it again," without knowing what we're talking about. Sin is a serious matter.

It should be obvious from the above that I know exactly what I am talking about, which is why I had the right to "give advice" to you. And I never accused you of sin. Had I been sure that you sinned (acting deliberately wrongly), I would have mentioned Confession to you. I intentionally kept silent about that, due to your possible innocence through ignorance.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 09, 2004.

Scoop,

If you are not willing to read the whole thread and understand my comments "in context," you are not eligible to criticize what I wrote. If you had read everything carefully, you would know that I have been conditionally approving only of the copying of Maryann's specific health-improving item for her impoverished child.

This rationalization may work for YOU, but to me it's just that -- a hollow rationalization. If she can use an exercise video, she also must have a vcr and television which puts her at least one step aove starvation. She doesn't have to steal. She also could walk to the library and legitimately borrow one. She could borrow her mother's, and the mother could borrow one from someone else, OR she could go outside and walk her fat off, and eat less for free. "It's more convenient" or "it's more pleasurable to do it this way" is no excuse for stealing.

No, you do not. You "own" only your copy of the recordings. The "creator" owns the "master copy," and normally he alone owns the right to copy (copyright) it for others.

Apply this to your incorrect "thought" above.

I have the God-given right (which supersedes copyright laws) to make a gift of these as long as the act is one of good will. No, you do not. You have the right to give away your copy -- and you have the right to give away a second and third copy that you buy from the "creator" (directly or through retail). But you normally have no "God-given right" to make copies yourself to give away -- unless you have the creator's permission (which would usually entail sending him some compensation).

Apply THIS to your incorrect "thought" above.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 09, 2004.

I was reading this thread when I starting thinking about all the comments. Now I am wondering about everytime a song is played. For example, the students at our school want to put together a preformance (that people pay to come watch) and they use some music as a large part of the preformance, are they profiting of anothers work?

Or if I am attend a wedding reception and the wedding couple gives out a CD as a party favor with a bunch of songs on it that were for some reason important to them is that probably wrong too?

It seems like this could really get confusing.

-- James Ray (rayray@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

Apply this to your incorrect "thought" above. ... Apply THIS to your incorrect "thought" above.

Contrary to what you imagined -- as is so evident in your sarcastic words -- I did "apply" everything I later stated to the "exception" situation, testing it. Thus, it proved to be definitely neither an "incorrect thought" nor a rationalization. All the potential objections you mentioned were previously taken into account by me (lending [assumed not possible], borrowing [assumed not available], etc.). The legitimate exception is apparently too difficult a concept for you to understand -- or you understood it, but you are obsessed with winning even lost arguments.

I could see that those later things I mentioned did not apply to the exception. (That's why I portrayed it so clearly as a rare exception!) And I could also foresee that someone might not think clearly and would try to use against me those later things I mentioned. I prayed that everyone would be sharp enough to avoid the mistake of attacking me, but (alas) you failed. Please try harder next time. Thanks.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 09, 2004.

Dear James:
It can indeed become confusing. Most of all when the world pretends to speak for God, and forgets that not everything reprehensible is a sin. It makes each act fall into either the sinful or innocent category, when the shades of gray (even silver) are clearly meant to matter for something.
There's a good reason why I amused myself through several postings here. I wished to see if love of neighbor would be mentioned in passing. But I was disappointed. The subject quickly came down to legalities and supercilious posing. Now things come to a point of no return, when any further elaboration is sure to be taken for ''wiggling out''. Which I have no taste for at all. If the nuances contained in my first half-dozen posts were passed over silently by some just to close the door on discussion, I'd just as soon let it close instead of returning to add a disclaimer after all my efforts.

My intent from the beginning was to discuss SIN. Not who could afford something & who had money to spare for a purchase. I hoped to support charitable ideas of blamelessness, not dumb this down to lost earnings by the ''authors''. My own authors have been dead around 150 years anyway; and their intellectual property wasn't paid for by companies that exploit them now. They were robbed a long time ago. Whereas, the new ''exercise'' DVD's which opened this discussion are still current and in fact represent a substantial value. ''Stealing'' that kind of property is a slightly more reprehensible action, I suppose.

I think most actions hold compartments. In one, they can be innocent and even Christian. In the other compartment, the same act might be reprehensible or unethical, but not a sin. In another, the action may be malicious and totally sinful. And I'm not suggesting moral relativism or situation ethics. I mean the same action is variable in the eyes of our Holy Redeemer, after all the only Judge who counts. That's the attitude I brought into this thread and the same one I leave it with.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.

James Ray, let not your heart be troubled!

Now I am wondering about everytime a song is played. For example, the students at our school want to put together a preformance (that people pay to come watch) and they use some music as a large part of the preformance, are they profiting of anothers work?

I believe that it is required by law to seek permission to use the text of a copyrighted play, musical work, etc., in a professional performance for which admission is charged. Permission may not be required for school performances, especially where there is a free-will offering or a nominal charge to cover expenses (not to make a profit).

Or if I am attend a wedding reception and the wedding couple gives out a CD as a party favor with a bunch of songs on it that were for some reason important to them is that probably wrong too? If you are talking about a professionally made CD, the couple purchased multiple copies of the CD, then there is no problem. But if the couple "assembled" the CD by cobbling together various "cuts" from other CDs and burning them on to blanks -- without getting permission from the "creators" to do this -- then they have done something illegal.

Many people don't realize something about the little song, "Happy Birthday," composed early in the 20th century. For many years (and until very recently), TV and radio stations had to pay a very small "royalty" to the composers/lyricists -- a couple of women and later their estate -- for each and every public airing of the song.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 09, 2004.

Sorry, James. That second-to-last paragraph was supposed to be a quotation (in italics) and a response, like this -----

Or if I am attend a wedding reception and the wedding couple gives out a CD as a party favor with a bunch of songs on it that were for some reason important to them is that probably wrong too?

If you are talking about a professionally made CD, the couple purchased multiple copies of the CD, then there is no problem. But if the couple "assembled" the CD by cobbling together various "cuts" from other CDs and burning them on to blanks -- without getting permission from the "creators" to do this -- then they have done something illegal.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 09, 2004.

It's really kind of a trivial thing, giving your daughter a copied excersize DVD, don't you think. I download music off the internet all the time. I don't sell it to anyone, but I do burn a few songs onto CD's now and then. So what? The record companies charge you $18 for a CD it cost them $0.75 to make, and I'm the thief? Then Ben Aflek did a comercial to tell people that "downloading movies hurts everyone". Shut up, Ben. Are you afraid you won't be able to buy a third summer house in Malibu? You poor, poor man. Let your daughter have the burned DVD's. Take it easy.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 12, 2004.

ALTERNATIVE to copying (suggestions)

I do not agree with burning DVDs/CDs, etc., because it is contrary to the laws that God has established through our govt (see Rom. 13).

You could suggest that she check at her local library, who will probably have exercise videos that she could borrow for free (if you live in a state of the US that loans out movies rather than renting). If not, perhaps you could buy her one and give it to her, or let her borrow yours for awhile? Or have her over to your house and watch it together. Once she learns the video well enough, she may be able to remember all the moves without watching the video. She could perhaps draw some of them or make key words for herself to remember them. Or you could look up on a website and print out some drawings of different exercises and mail them to her (if she lives far away). The library may also have exercise books with pictures that she can legally copy if it is for personal/educational/non- profit purposes only. (After all, what did people do before there were TV/VCRs?)

I believe that when we seek to faithfully follow God's laws, he will be faithful in providing what we need. But we must take that step of faith in trusting Him with our lives. The very fact that you posted this question here shows that your conscience was bothering you about it, and no amount of rationalization from others can deny the fact that we should follow what God is showing us.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 12, 2004.

EIGHT:'You shall not steal.'

I'm in a shop/store , and I like to buy something I really want too , but I don't have the money , so be it , so sorry , maybe next time !!

btw , It's illegal to turn your home into a cinema , so , you can't inviting people to watch that DVD (borrowed , bought , hired) !!

You will see the specific instructions of what is allowed when you turn on the DVD or video !!

It's also against the law to make illegal copy of any copyrighted materials, you are on your own to deal with any legal issues. You have been warned !!

< b>Copyrights & Trademarks , example: DVD

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 13, 2004.

Maybe, it's the strong html tag? Hopefully?

-- - (-@-.-), January 13, 2004.

Thank you for letting me know your views, Sara. As I explained, you are to follow your conscience in all matters, not just one. I always do. I do not agree we're talking about stealing but not scruples. YOU are focussed on stealing. Do I believe in larceny? Certainly not.

Your advice: We're not talking about scruples here, we're talking about the sin of stealing. (See the above statement.) One would be stealing another person's labour, their wages. (Not at all. One would be BUYING one's proper use of that labor. One's purchase price would be fit compensation for the author's work. I believe in paying.

That person/company is entitled to remuneration for the work. Whether we may or may not believe that the amount being stolen (again: WHEN STOLEN, NOT BOUGHT.) is negligible in comparison to a person's/company's earnings is irrelevant. The fact remains that we are taking something without paying for it.(I never have. I paid the market price for all my CD's, and the owners had that compensation. Definitely, they earned it and we'll pay it.) Would you open a man's Wage Packet and take one pound--? No; and I would complain if he took part of my wages for nothing.

Whereas, a copy replicated from the CD's I OWN is quite honestly passed on to a recipient; and should never be called a stolen gift. The author is NOT being cheated out of further returns for his/her work. Just consider:

The price of advertising is usually included in expenses toward production of a recording. My gift (paid for in the original) goes on to another listener, whose first impulse might well be obtaining even more recordings from the one entertainer. He will actually benefit from my sharing the copy. Keep in mind; I am giving it away, not re-selling. That is dishonest.

You may respond by accusing me of rationalising. But not of rationalising a sinful action. Sinful actions stand clearly apart. I do not condone stealing.

Consider again: No one said we may wreck another person's customer base by repeatedly giving away his production. I expect you to admit, it is a one-time gift, of ONE copy. The author's economical future is not altered. Neither is a copyright owner entitled to cramp my liberty to offer somebody a gift of his music. I would never first STEAL it and then give it away. I SHARE what I paid for. That cannot be a sin, Sara.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2004.

Eugene,

OK so you make only ONE copy and give it as a free gift. You may not think that makes a huge difference to the author economically. However, what if twenty thousand other people do the same, is that going to make a difference? Of course it is!

One small wheel in a big cog…

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves…

OK OK I will desist with the clichés!

When someone buys a book or CD or DVD they buy the right to THAT copy, they are not authorised to copy it, no matter how you try to rationalise it. I would quite probably receive instant dismissal from work if I were to put a copied CD of any material onto a works computer. Nobody can use any of our material we produce unless they either buy a license to do so or buy individual copies of the material.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 13, 2004.

Dear Sara:
As I've already stated, these insights are commendable; I'm sure you're sincere.

We can take them as a good example of what is purely legal.

I'm saying this does not fall into the category of sinful. I make a distinction between unlawful and sinful. You may not. To say it clearly: burning a copy of the CD we own outright-- is illegal, but it is not a sin. Not for giving as a free gift. It is not a sin either to be a party to the loss of sales for the company who sells them retail. That is their hard luck, not anyone's SIN! Not any more sinful than reading a borrowed book. Not any more sinful than if my cousin and I chip in half the price EACH and buy an item together, to SHARE.

Sin is first of all serious, not a trifling problem. Sin is unforced, and with complete knowledge of evil done.

Scruples are not sins, but misgivings due to an insecure set of values, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2004.

you are to follow your conscience in all matters, not just one. I always do.

But it is not good enough merely "to follow your conscience." It is also required that we INFORM our conscience, so that it is worth following.

A conscience is not some magical mental feature that springs full-grown from the womb. It has some basics from the "maker," but it also needs to be more fully "taught." Each person's conscience must be formed/informed to be completely in line with the teachings of the Church. Catholics whose consciences ARE so formed/informed on this subject -- like Sara, Emily, et al -- have been trying to help Eugene to better form/inform HIS conscience, so that he will begin to do the right thing. At the present moment, his conscience is poorly formed/informed on this topic, so he not only acts, but also advises others to act, against the teachings of the Church.

As I've already stated, these insights are commendable; I'm sure you're sincere. We can take them as a good example of what is purely legal. I'm saying this does not fall into the category of sinful.

This is completely wrong -- contrary to Catholic belief. Sara's words are not merely "commendable" and "insights." They are what we are required by the Church to follow. In fact, this matter DOES "fall into the category of sinful." How so? True, this is a "legal" matter, but that itself makes it binding under pain of sin, provided that the law involved is a just law. The Church respects copyright law as "just law," never telling us that we are free to disregard it.

Our obligation as Christians to obey every just law is extrapolated from what St. Paul told the Romans at the start of chapter 13 -----

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Lord God, please open the heart and mind of your servant Eugene, to know, understand, and accept these truths. Amen.

-- (The@Scoop.Com), January 14, 2004.

When you purchase goods you agree to the contract being offered to you, and must comply with that contract. According to the Catechism not to do so is breaking the seventh commandment:

2410 Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just. A significant part of economic and social life depends on the honouring of contracts between physical or moral persons - commercial contracts of purchase or sale, rental or labour contracts. All contracts must be agreed to and executed in good faith.

I would imagine this includes Copyright contracts.

The Catechism goes on to say:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.190

It’s obvious that when someone puts a copyright on a product and you copy it you are acting against the will of the owner. it’s also obvious that DVDs, books and CDs are not ‘essential items’

Furthermore, the Catechism instructs us:

2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.191

I would suggest that we could also say illegally copying materials is business fraud.

Eugene, you said:

‘Not for giving as a free gift. It is not a sin either to be a party to the loss of sales for the company who sells them retail. That is their hard luck, not anyone's SIN! Not any more sinful than reading a borrowed book. Not any more sinful than if my cousin and I chip in half the price EACH and buy an item together, to SHARE’

Eugene, when you share something you don’t copy it illegally and distribute it, you give the person the copy you’ve bought and then they give you it back and so forth. To share implies that there’s one copy of the material being shared between two or more people. That's obviously a different matter entirely to the matter in question.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 14, 2004.

When you pay for a property it becomes yours, not the state's nor the copyright holder. Copyrights by definition exist to protect an author from those who would break that law and use a property for gain. We can honestly give something that belongs to us personally. My CD, my copy of that CD, and my gift to another. There is nothing whatsoever covered in catechisms or anyplace that forbids such an action. You may dredge up all the text you want. My conscience is definitely informed. I suggest all of you study the Church's teachngs on false scruples. As for me, I do not concede the point, my conscience is clear in this matter.

I would never qualify my position if I weren't forced to in such a contrary manner by your attacks. My gifts were of OLD recordings of Brahms, Schubert and an Argentine composer, Piazzola, long DEAD. They will hardly suffer financial embarrassment because I introduced a friend to their music. My conscience tells me so. These recordings were made YEARS ago! They're out of print!

It cannot be dishonest to copy and make a gift of them, OK?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.

Gene, Interesting you mention that the CD is out of print. If this is true, then at least one Monsignor agrees with you. BC Catholic Q&A

If the CD or video tape is available commercially, then I still consider it a sin to copy and distribute, even as a gift.

By the way, using Google and searching on "copying music Catholic", a ton of sites came up. The majority of them simply said copying CDs for friends is wrong. The one above was the only one (of the 10 or so I looked at) that mentioned out of print copying is OK.

God Bless.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), January 14, 2004.

The reason I didn't really want to state that my copies were of dated material is that I think it's irrelevant. I only explained because I was being badgered about this. It wouldn't be a sin if they were current. I'm referring to copying to give somebody, not resale. On principle I still believe the illegal aspect is NOT sinful of itself. It may be ''unethical,'' reprehensible, unfair, etc., but not necessarily a sin.

You may, of course, believe as you please. It's a judgment, and mine doesn't have to count in your book.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.

The reason I didn't really want to state that my copies were of dated material is that I think it's irrelevant. I only explained because I was being badgered about this. It wouldn't be a sin if they were current. I'm referring to copying to give somebody, not resale. On principle I still believe the illegal aspect is NOT sinful of itself. It may be ''unethical,'' reprehensible, unfair, etc., but not necessarily a sin. I believe I own the product and I'm entitled to share it. I'm NOT giving away anyone's money.

You may, of course, believe as you please. It's a judgment, and mine doesn't have to count in your book.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.

I do not concede the point, my conscience is clear in this matter.

Your "conscience"?
It is not "clear."
It is moribund.

Dear Lord, please keep working on this man's astonishingly hard heart of stone. Use the cutting diamond of your grace to break through and convict him of his sin. Amen.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 15, 2004.

Thank you Scoop,
We will meet again at Our lord's banquet and make merry together with Him and His loved ones. I'm sure your pure heart appeals to Him, and we need more like you. God bless you, comfort you always and keep you from all harm and misfortune in this life; Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

Eugene is right.

Illegal is not equal to immoral. Just go and study what "mere poenales" laws mean in any Moral Theology manual.

The whole problem here is that most of you are reasoning in terms of material things. Intellectual property cannot be analyzed by the same standards. A good book about this would be Nicholas Negroponte's "Being Digital", where he states the difference between "atoms" and "bytes". He thinks that the whole concept of intellectual property has no future with the day after day more inexpensive duplication of digital data. In other words, he says that copyright is very close to going kaput, and that new market (and legal) models shall arise. Of course, as Gene and others pointed out, legislation about this is much more a consequence of powerful industrial lobbies that of ethical concern.

By the way, the concept of copyright is a very very recent one. In the Middle Ages people considered that all knowledge came from God, so that nobody could claim ownership over it. You could quote another author as you wished, without mentioning his name. You only mentioned the author of a quote for "argument of authority"´s sake, that is, you only quoted someone "more important" than you (like Scripture or the Fathers).

Interestingly, one of the Catechism points cited above, describing theft, would be a good description of what the record companies do: "forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another". The other one defines theft as "usurping another's property", that is, material things that, once usurped, are no longer in the possession of the original proprietary. Of course, this is not the case with intellectual property.

This is obviously a "gray area", so much that the Church has never pronounced anything concrete about it, leaving the final decision to each individual's conscience. If the case were so clear cut, as some people here want to make it appear, it would be specifically treated in the Catechism, and it is not. The Catechism is recent enough for it's writers to be aware of the Intellectual Property problem. If they did not put this there, it is because the Church has not yet reached a conclusion about it. And "lex dubia non obligat".

Therefore, again, Eugene is right. Nobody can come here and pontificate about the morality of these kinds of problems. We are living in a changing world, with changing technology, and it poses new questions that moral theologians did not reach an accord yet. So, it is wrong (and presumptuous) for one to presume to know clearly what is or isn't a sin here. Intellectual property is a completely different thing from material goods, and treating it as such is simplistic (and probably wrong). So, the assumption that "copying is theft" is simplistic and very weakly based on scientific or ontological reasoning. And so are the arguments about "each copy given is a CD not sold", which is, as many people here hinted, obviously false, showing a poor understanding of the laws of economics (here the principle involved is the price-elasticity and the income-elasticity of demand).

And finally, as someone else said, a certain degree of piracy is indeed wanted by the industry. It makes the band / film / software widely known and facilitates further purchases and income from other sources (through licensing, live show attendance, TV payments, advertising etc.) or market share. Indeed, it is well known that Microsoft (and other companies) encouraged piracy in its early days, as a way to dominate and acquire market share and establish the monopoly it now has. Again, in such cases, what the Catechism says, "There is no theft if consent can be presumed", applies here.

Therefore, this is no simple problem, is a gray area and Gene is correct to say that people should be less eager to find "objective sins" in their neighbor's behavior.

God Bless

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), January 16, 2004.

Thanks, Atila,
In truth I can see sin in some acts like these; as when or if dishonesty is intended. --An attempt to make illegal profit. There is no justifying a CD pirate burning multiple copies of another individual's records and selling them in a black market, or passing them off as his own creations.

Take a closer look at the clear distinction between sin and something unacceptable or unwise; reprehensible. If a person drives through a STOP signal (looking both ways), that's unwise and illegal, but hardly a SIN.

It should not be tolerated, and a fine is imposed; but it's not a clearly sinful action, only ''bad''. Has the Scoop ever said in confession: ''I sinned in traffic; going over the posted speed limit?'' I have to doubt it. Yet, he's broken a law, hoping to get away with it. It isn't GOOD.

Burning and giving away a few CD copies is actionable, I guess. But hardly a sin. The very idea trivializes real sin, unless we have some malicious motive.

My motive is GOOD. A gift of something beautiful as I see it. Not profit or malicious motives, but Christian love. ''It is more blessed to give than to receive.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

If a person drives through a STOP signal (looking both ways), that's unwise and illegal, but hardly a SIN.It should not be tolerated, and a fine is imposed; but it's not a clearly sinful action, only ''bad''.

I think you have to look at the situation. Taking unnecessary risks with your own safety & that of others (i.e., reckless driving) is a sin against the 5th Commandment, and I believe both the Baltimore Catechism and the New Catechism support that. Coming to a "rolling" stop on a seldom-used thoroughfare before going through the intersection should be looked at differently. It's still wrong, but less so. I see your point, Gene, but it goes both ways.

With respect to stealing, lifting money from the poor box and pilfering a pen from work to use at home are both stealling, but one is a more serious offense than the other.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 16, 2004.

You clarify what's already clear. Sin is sin. Not all blameworthy actions are sins. If running a stop sign were a sin, then we have to confess it; but it's not.

Only if we wantonly disregard what might cause injury or damage to property, and do it knowingly, is the action sinful. It's already WRONG, no one denies that. But an infraction is not necessarily a sin against the 5th commandment.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

If running a stop sign were a sin, then we have to confess it; but it's not.

My point was that it can be sinful, even mortally sinful, depending on the situation.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 16, 2004.

Disobedience to lawful authority is indeed a sin. That would include disobedience to laws of the state that are not opposed to the law of God. That would include running a stop sign. We do not have to confess it because it would ordinarily not be a mortal sin (unless we did it with the conscious intent of endangering human life). But venial sins are still sins.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 16, 2004.

It's a gray area determining venial sin, even. Just because the infraction took place, doesn't make it willful, and so, it's not a sin at all. But, a venial sin? By consciously having no regard for the stop-sign and knowing it means a sin-- you will commit one.

The fact it's incautious and may cause injury or damage to property-- added to total disregard for consequences would make it a grave sin. There would be no excuse for committing it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

Indeed, things are not so simple, again.

Of course, I am not saying that piracy is ok; I am only cautioning that things are not so simple as some people have posed here (like "all copying is theft"). It is a gray area that needs further study by moral theologians, based on traditional moral theology and the modern understanding of science, technology, economics and sociology. The Church precise norms about interest and usury changed over time because of the evolution of capitalist society. The Church does not excommunicate people who own or work in banks because it lends money for interest, although in the Middle Ages this was considered a very grave sin. Likewise, the Catechism (and the Magisterium at large) is quite specific about things concerning abortion, euthanasia, artificial contraception, cloning, in vitro fertilization etc. Why? Because She has had already the time to consider profoundly the moral consequences of new scientific discoveries and technological inventions. About the moral consequences of digital technology and Intellectual Property, however, She probably did not reach specific consequences yet, as can be seen from the fact that the Magisterium has not pronounced itself about these specific actions. This is not for nothing, not an "oversight" of the Vatican. The Church understands that this is a difficult moral area and is giving time for things to clear up. Meanwhile, each person has to act based on their (well formed) conscience. This is how the Magisterium works.

It is interesting that the traffic light example has come up, because this is the most usual example of "lex mere poenalis". Depending on the circumstances, not stopping at the light may be (1) immoral, (2) morally indifferent or even (3) the right thing to do (and STOPPING would be immoral.

Let's see:

(1) The most obvious situation. You recklessly drive through the traffic light in great speed and not looking both ways: immoral, because it goes against the 5th Commandment;

(2) Indifferent: if the light is red but you stop, look both ways and see nobody (car or pedestrian) around, you may go ahead, but if you are caught (by a hidden traffic cop, e.g.) you are morally bound to pay the fine (this is the classic example of "mere poenale"); this is not a case of venial sin for lack of serious matter: it is no sin at all, it is a morally indifferent act (in these circumstances)! This is the essence of the "mere poenale" doctrine. Of course, the judgment about the circumstances IS a moral action. And it would be sinful to refuse to pay the fine, should it be imposed.

(3) The only moral option; at certain times in certain areas of many metropolitan areas (like Rio de Janeiro, Bombay or Los Angeles), it would be very dangerous to stop at the red light and wait for it to turn green. You may be assaulted and even murdered, since many robbers stand by waiting for this event. If you are a paterfamilias, it would be immoral to stop and risk being robber / murdered. In Rio, for example, the police actually recommend people NOT to stop at red light at late night. Therefore, the moral thing to do is to reduce speed at the crossing, look both ways and go ahead as soon as possible. Otherwise, you would be risking your life unnecessary.

As for what Paul says, that "disobedience to lawful authority is indeed a sin", again the things are not so simple.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, "Not every regulation of the superior, however, is binding, but only those in accordance with reason. Law is the criterion of reasonable action and must, therefore, itself be reasonable. A law not in accordance with reason is a contradiction." And then "Human laws must also be useful to the common welfare (…) Consequently all laws must in some way serve the common welfare. A law plainly useless or a fortiori injurious to the community is no true law. It could have in view only the benefit of private individuals and would consequently subordinate the common welfare to the welfare of individuals, the higher to the lower."

Therefore, not always we are to believe that EVERY SINGLE LAW is to be obeyed. Otherwise, we would be juridical positivists (a heresy). The above excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopaedia make it quite clear that the right to disobey the law is not only restricted to immoral laws (those which try to force us to sin). On the contrary, we have the RIGHT not to obey a law that has " in view only the benefit of private individuals and would consequently subordinate the common welfare to the welfare of individuals". This is the moral foundation of Civil Disobedience. If law forces you to sin, you have the DUTY to disobey. However, even if the law does not force you to sin, but tries to usurp a right you have, it is morally licit to disobey that law (indeed, it is not a true law). So, as this law does not command you to sin, you are not morally obliged to disobey it, but you have the RIGHT to do so if you wish. I fear that many many laws in today's world fall inside that category. In dictatorships it is obvious, but it is very common in democracies as well. As the text I quoted says (and as every one of us knows) many laws in the capitalist societies are simply expression of powerful industrial lobbies and so they "have in view only the benefit of private individuals and would consequently subordinate the common welfare to the welfare of individuals, the higher to the lower." IMHO, many aspects of copyright laws fall exactly in this category, since they impose some (or many) draconian duties upon the user / purchaser (even while, in other aspects, they defend rightful interests if some parties), and this not for the sake of the common good but for the benefit of the lobbies who made Congress pass them.

Therefore, as I have said many times, what is in discussion is not the seriousness of matter of presumed sins, but the very morality of these acts. I mean, I am not saying that driving through the red traffic light or some kinds of digital copying are "venial sins", I am saying that they can be either morally indifferent or even, in certain circumstances, morally good, in spite of legislation to the contrary. That is, in these cases, these acts may be not sin at all, or even meritory actions! Although I may agree with Paul that sinful disobedience " would include disobedience to laws of the state that are not opposed to the law of God", I think that this must not be interpreted too strictly. That is, not only laws that force us to sin are in this category (like China's one-child policy), but all "laws" that may reasonably be shown not to be real laws, because they do not serve the common good or are "plainly useless", even if they do not command sin (they may command that the average citizen give up rights that he morally has for the benefit of a small group of private individuals). So, I may reasonably say that an illogical, unreasonable or useless law is not really a law, and it IS opposed to the law of God, simply by being illogical, useless or unreasonable, even if it does not command sin. And, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia says, even " plainly useless" are not real laws and may be morally disobeyed.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), January 16, 2004.

Gee, that's a load off my mind.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

A picture of two people: One spends three years of their life writing the next "War and Peace", the other works at McDonalds.

The McDonalds worker makes 48000 at the end of three years for their labor.

The guy who writes War & Peace sells one copy at $8, it's copied onto the internet and he gets nothing else. Is this just? No. We are not to defraud workers of their wages, and copying something you could be buying is stealing. Especially when it's something trivial like a video! Good grief, loan them YOUR copy if you want them to see it so bad. Let the folks who worked to make it earn an honest living in their craft.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 16, 2004.

Darn it, Frank, you bear me out very well!
It isn't fair; it's rotten, no one can say it isn't a crime. -- But why is it a sin?

Sins are sometimes regarded very lukewarmly by society nowadays. A disgusting woman can be spoken of politely in the media as a ''high class prostitute''.

In order for something serious (not trifling) to be rightly called sin, it must offend God. Not me; not Atila or you. God.

I went so far as to concede clearly, YES; in some cases it is a sin. But not always. In many instances the action is just as low, just as unfair and unworthy of a Christian-- BUT NOT SIN. How can you fail to agree the exception is what proves the rule? Enough philosophy!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

Eugene,

I was really directing this towards Atila's post, and am stating MY belief. You are accountable to the Lord in exactly the same way I am. If your educated belief is that it's NOT sinful, go ahead! Mine is that it IS, so I'll refrain. Naturally though, I'll put my (correct, LOL) two cents out there on it though! :-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 16, 2004.

Hi Frank, long time, nice to talk to you again!

You surely noticed that I did not give any specific example (besides the "traffic light" one to illustrate the moral principle of the "mere poenale"). I merely tried to explain what Catholic Doctrine says about obeying laws. And I did so because many people here said that copying a DVD is a sin because it breaks the law, which is nonsense. Breaking the law is sinful in a very specific way, as I wrote in my last post. Not all laws are sinfully disobeyed.

The example you brought would certainly be immoral. However, you somehow showed up with an extreme example, one in which nobody with common sense would disagree. Unfortunately, in the real life, your example hardly represents what goes on. Gene wrote about record and book companies that make money with works which have already fallen into public domain. And I have much difficulty to see how it would be immoral to download from the internet a song from the Rolling Stones, some people who have more money than I could expect to have even if I lived 300 lives. As someone said, that I may be charged 30 dollars for such a work makes me wonder: who is the thief here? Very few (if any) of the money you pay in a CD goes to the author.

A Beatles record in the sixties was so good that it had two sides and 50 minutes of very good music, and they were so prolific that they released a new record every 6 months.

Then, in the 80's, the record industry discovered that the "Midas touch" was to have a band create a couple of good songs and fill the rest of the CD with thrash. If a group composed two good songs, the record industry would select the first to be present in the first CD and would only use the second one in a new record two or three years after. In both CDs, the rest of them would be filled with thrash, and people who liked that good song would be forced to buy (for 20-30 bucks) a whole CD full of thrash. Who is the thief here? Why does not the industry let me buy just what I want for a reasonable price? Why cannot I buy just one song for one dollar, like in the very successful Apple's new program?

Microsoft created a monopoly for which it is being prosecuted in the US and Europe. They force everybody to use their software, and they charge obscenely high fees from them (that's why Microsoft shows incredible profits every year, crisis or not crisis, and the reason why Bill Gates became the richest man in the West). Therefore, I cannot see how copying Micro$oft's software can be sinful (however illegal). Indeed, I am convinced that everything that makes MS less powerful is meritory (Don't forget that Bill Gates is one of the most generous supporters of abortion worldwide).

Therefore, I think that everybody should consider every case as unique. Is this band that I like a bunch of good people, who are just starting and deserve recognition and stimulus? Let's buy their CD! Is it a band in which all the members are already biillionaire drug- addicts? And who, besides that, donate money for abortion militants? Well, in his case, I am not so sure that copying their music is sinful. Remember Augustine's argument, an offence must be measured regarding the offended!

Let us go to a more dramatic situation. Suppose that I need to have Microsoft's software in my computer so that I can work and maintain my family. Suppose that I do not have the money to pay for the immensely obscene fees that cost MS licenses. Should I be a intellectual property law fanatic and stop working and earning money to raise my children because I would be stealing from Mr. Bill Gates? I do not think so. I would be a sinner if I did so.

By the way, the writer of the next War and Peace will probably die poor, even if nobody copies him. On the other hand, any writer of best-seller self-help books is becoming a millionaire. Is it fair that "the McDonalds worker makes 48000 at the end of three years for their labor", whereas Tom Clancy or John Grisham or Sidney Sheldon become billionaires with their amoral (and literarily incredibly poor) novels? Let us look at reality as it is, not as we idealize it.

God bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), January 16, 2004.

By the way, I think this is exactly the kind of discussion we should have in this forum!

One of the main reasons I stopped contributing here (although still reading it as often as possible) was that discussions became restricted to combats with protestants / traditionalist schismatics and ACRCs (besides all the incredibly boring never-ending discussions about "annulment").

I always thought that this site should be a place for Catholics to debate exactly these kind of things: things that are not defined by the Magisterium and therefore grant the good debate between we the faithful.

God bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), January 16, 2004.

As far as I know, people can still record off the radio...it probably falls under the Betamax case I mentioned earlier.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 16, 2004.

Atila,

Good to talk to you too. BTW, Atila, Eugene, nothing personal, just my opinion on all this...

What bothers me here though is that the things we are talking about aren't *needs*, but *wants*. To me the discussion really is "can I have more than I can afford to pay for", and not "I must do this to live". I don't think the Bible wants us to be gluttons, and we don't really NEED videos or CDs. How about going to the library and checking a book out? That's why I think it's sinful, it seems like people are replacing the true definition of need with the American definition of want. Once you decide you are entitled to what you can't buy, it gets scary.

If the cost of a Rolling Stones CD is too much, don't buy it. Criminals use the same rationale for robbing liquor stores: they had stuff I "needed". It's not, IMO, right.

Suppose that I need to have Microsoft's software in my computer so that I can work and maintain my family. Suppose that I do not have the money to pay for the immensely obscene fees that cost MS licenses. Should I be a intellectual property law fanatic and stop working and earning money to raise my children because I would be stealing from Mr. Bill Gates?

You know, I don't buy it. I try and GIVE my old computers away, and no one wants them because they are too old (that includes our local Catholic school). You could use an old computer, or steal the goods for a new one. Both will get the job done for most jobs. Someone who needs an ultra-high-end computer probably starts out working for someone else anyway.

"the McDonalds worker makes 48000 at the end of three years for their labor", whereas Tom Clancy or John Grisham or Sidney Sheldon become billionaires with their amoral (and literarily incredibly poor) novels? Let us look at reality as it is, not as we idealize it.

My nephew is an aspiring writer. One thing I remember showing him was that the average income of writers is 4000 per year. There are a few millionaires, but most are poor. Just like with the number of people who play basketball versus those in the pros. All of them have a right to their income. LOL, I must admit it's self-interest too on my part. Howard Dean wants a bigger chunk of my income (which the .gov will take by force). If I don't stick up for the rich, who will stick up for me when my time comes and they want my income? No, you should get what you earn, not take from others.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 16, 2004.

Eugene is right. Illegal is not equal to immoral.

This is a classic case of knocking over a "straw man." No one stated flat-out" that "legal is equal to moral." The required distinction was made, in this way: In fact, this matter DOES "fall into the category of sinful." How so? True, this is a "legal" matter, but that itself makes it binding under pain of sin, provided that the law involved is a just law. The Church respects copyright law as "just law," never telling us that we are free to disregard it.

Indifferent: if the light is red but you stop, look both ways and see nobody (car or pedestrian) around, you may go ahead, but if you are caught (by a hidden traffic cop, e.g.) you are morally bound to pay the fine (this is the classic example of "mere poenale"); this is not a case of venial sin for lack of serious matter: it is no sin at all, it is a morally indifferent act (in these circumstances)! This is the essence of the "mere poenale" doctrine. Of course, the judgment about the circumstances IS a moral action. And it would be sinful to refuse to pay the fine, should it be imposed.

This is absolutely false, the kind of thing one would expect to see only from an anarchist, not a Catholic. It IS a sin to go through that traffic light, even after people "look both ways and see nobody (car or pedestrian) around." The law that forbids forward motion at a red light is a just law, and each driver lacks the ability and permission to override the judgment of the "state" and to proceed on his own volition. The admitted fact that "it would be sinful to refuse to pay the fine" actually proves that the action is wrong and therefore sinful.

I may reasonably say that an illogical, unreasonable or useless law is not really a law, and it IS opposed to the law of God, simply by being illogical, useless or unreasonable, even if it does not command sin. And, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia says, even 'plainly useless' are not real laws and may be morally disobeyed.

This is very interesting, but not relevant to the specific law or actions (copyright law and violation thereof) being discussed on this thread. No one has been talking about any "useless laws" here. It appears, though, that Eugene wrongly thought you were stating the above words to excuse his improper actions relative to CDs. What you and the Encyclopedia state have nothing to do with copyright laws, which should be considered both "just" and "useful" until the Church says otherwise.

Let us consider the following incorrect comments posted by Eugene since my last message -----

1. Take a closer look at the clear distinction between sin and something unacceptable or unwise; reprehensible. If a person drives through a STOP signal (looking both ways), that's unwise and illegal, but hardly a SIN.
2. It should not be tolerated, and a fine is imposed; but it's not a clearly sinful action, only ''bad''
3. Burning and giving away a few CD copies is actionable, I guess. But hardly a sin. The very idea trivializes real sin, unless we have some malicious motive. My motive is GOOD ... Christian love.
4. If running a stop sign were a sin, then we have to confess it; but it's not. ... It's already WRONG, no one denies that. But an infraction is not necessarily a sin against the 5th commandment.
5. In many instances the action is just as low, just as unfair and unworthy of a Christian-- BUT NOT SIN. How can you fail to agree the exception is what proves the rule?

Each of these comments by Eugene demonstrates either a moribund (dying, nearly dead) conscience or an ill-formed (poorly catechized) conscience. Let us hope that it is the latter. Each of the above comments is contrary to Catholic teaching.

1. There is no "distinction." Thinking that there is a distinction is a theological error, which one usually finds only in the heretical comments of "ultra-liberal" moral relativists. It's shocking to find it being expressed by an allegedly "conservative" Catholic. Deliberately violating a just traffic law is both illegal and sinful.
2. What is "bad," if done deliberately, is by definition "sinful."

3. This is an example of the moral error of "the-end-justifies-the-means." The "motive" (malicious, neutral, or good) of illegal copying is irrelevant. What matters is that the illegality (and thus the immorality) of the action is known -- and is nevertheless disregarded. Even if the action is done for a very good motive (e.g., helping a priest), it is still sinful.

4. This is double-talk. If it is "WRONG," then it is a sin. Indeed, it IS wrong, if done deliberately. It is a sin, if done deliberately. We must do penance for it and, if is serious enough, we also have to confess it. We must resolve not to do it again. If a parent, teacher, or pastor said otherwise, then he/she made an incorrect statement, resulting from rebelliousness against authority or from his/her own reception of poor catechesis.

5. There is no "exception." If something deliberately done can be called "low ... unfair and unworthy of a Christian," then it is automatically a "sin." Perhaps it is venial, but it is still a sin, and it offends God, who sent his Son to die for it.

Dear Jesus, you carried your heavy, painful cross partly because some people who claim to be Catholic are unwilling to make small sacrifices to be obedient to lawful authorities, preferring to break the law rather than to yield up their will. Please have mercy on them and move their souls to repentance and reform.

-- (The@Scoop.Com), January 17, 2004.

I was wondering... in connection with this question, would you say that it would be alright for a person, whether or not a legitimate authority, to hack into someone else's computer in order to stop such activity?

Just curious.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

Well Emerald, according to some here, if you feel it's not immoral and/or illegal, go for it! Doesn't matter what the law says. Doesn't matter what the Church says. Seems now the only measure of illegality or immorality is what's really in your heart at the time.

If you steal from someone else it's illegal and immoral - period! To what degree of seriousness each theft will be measured is a question for each of us to come to grips with in our own heart.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 17, 2004.

"This is a classic case of knocking over a "straw man.""

Interesting. Scoop, what is your concept of a strawman. Have you seen mine?

I believe it was Atila who stated this:

"Indifferent: if the light is red but you stop, look both ways and see nobody (car or pedestrian) around, you may go ahead, but if you are caught (by a hidden traffic cop, e.g.) you are morally bound to pay the fine (this is the classic example of "mere poenale"); this is not a case of venial sin for lack of serious matter: it is no sin at all, it is a morally indifferent act (in these circumstances)! This is the essence of the "mere poenale" doctrine. Of course, the judgment about the circumstances IS a moral action. And it would be sinful to refuse to pay the fine, should it be imposed."

...to which Scoop responded this way:

"This is absolutely false, the kind of thing one would expect to see only from an anarchist, not a Catholic. It IS a sin to go through that traffic light, even after people "look both ways and see nobody (car or pedestrian) around." The law that forbids forward motion at a red light is a just law, and each driver lacks the ability and permission to override the judgment of the "state" and to proceed on his own volition. The admitted fact that "it would be sinful to refuse to pay the fine" actually proves that the action is wrong and therefore sinful.

I took the liberty of striking out the irrelevant personal attacks in the name of sticking to the point. I think this is good policy.

At any rate, there are missing distinctions here that would make the question easier to solve if we had access to them, and they include items relating to the nature of the act, in this case whether the act of proceeding through a red light is intrinsically evil or not. Prior to this disntinction, another related distinction is necessary that is also missing, which is the difference between matters of immutable truth and matters pertaining to practical action.

If one were to carefully examine the traffic light issue, they would find that the rules concerning the red light are addressing practical matters and not matters of immutable truth. Such cases do in fact admit of possible exceptions, exceptions which do not in and of themselves violate the ratio behind the rules. By contrast, if the issue at hand were fornication or adultery, or any such issue which embodied principles of immutable truth concerning the nature of a thing, then exceptions are never, ever possible; the rules are driven by a principle or ratio of immutable truth concerning the nature and essence of a thing. No exceptions, therefore, are possible.

Atila is therefore correct, although exactly when and where he is correct is, again, relegated to the realm of judgment. It is so because the question of right action is squarely in the realm of practical action and not immutable principle. The only thing in the traffic light example that comes close to immutable principle is the general working proposition that two bodies cannot occupy the same place at the same time, and such acknowledgements are useful for protecting cars and people, obviously. But even that proposition of itself, still, is not even an immutable principle, but one that works almost every time it's tried. It's empirical, but nonetheless, empirical does not make stand in for immutable principle; it only has it's likeness. But it is not the same thing. It merely works well and happens most every time it's tried; not at all the same as immutable principle.

If people are going to answer these questions properly, then the proper prior distinctions are a must and have to be laid out on the discussion table in order to effectively answer the questions about what's right and what's wrong, when, and why.

What you are really discussing here, imho, is the nature to true obedience. I think this question deserves to be answered. Be careful answering it though; it may upset more than one applecart of a conversation.

As for the rest, leaving the comments on the table for now, I thought I might merely slice the fat out of some of the comments below to make it easier for everyone. Pardon me for butting in; disagreements are normal, but focus is necessary.

"Each of these comments by Eugene demonstrates either a moribund (dying, nearly dead) conscience or an ill-formed (poorly catechized) conscience. Let us hope that it is the latter. Each of the above comments is contrary to Catholic teaching ... There is no "distinction." Thinking that there is a distinction is a theological error, which one usually finds only in the heretical comments of "ultra-liberal" moral relativists. It's shocking to find it being expressed by an allegedly "conservative" Catholic. Deliberately violating a just traffic law is both illegal and sinful."

Stick to the issue at hand and solve the question in the light of Catholic doctrine, tradition and teaching. Let's not attack the character of good people, in this case Eugene. Gene and I could find plenty to disagree on, sure. But keep his Catholic-ness out of the debate, please; keep a focus on the topic at hand for the benefit of all people who claim to be Catholic, and certainly for the benefit of those who don't.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

I'm with you here, Ed. I think the question ought to be answered and I think people ought to do the right thing.

Hey, I've downloaded stuff. I've wondered about whether it was right or not. I also want to do the right thing. At the same time, I don't want to get scrupulous about it, and would rather approach it with not just the law, or just the heart, in mind, but both the heart and the law joined in union.

KnowwhatImean?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

Emerald,

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being scrupulous...we all ought to be scrupulous about it, being scrupulous is a good thing!

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (Sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 17, 2004.

I agree sara... I mean the kind that works the law to death like a machine; senseless, mindless adherence to rules and regulations without a thought to principle and purpose. The other mistake is to call all things a matter of the heart, yet just another deception; the law and the spirit need to be joined into a single existence.

The law didn't pass away at all, but was fulfilled; it takes a lot of work to understand this. It's not easy at all and I'm not saying I understand it all; same with being in the world and not of it. None of this stuff is easy, but answers can be had and lived out I believe.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

Frank, I agree with you--I can relate to the computer issue, as well as trying to donate gently used baby items and basic food. Everybody wants new, even people who are charity cases. And to anyone who brings up the (in this case) "poor" McDonald's worker, well, in this country, no one forces you to work anywhere. If you don't like MS, go with Linux, or some other system. If you don't like how much money someone makes, don't buy their product, or go to the games. Let other people pay their salaries.

What I think is a real crime (and probably accounts for some of the reasons why people copy illegally) is the deliberate planned obsolescence of software, and that when you upgrade to a better operating system, your old software that you paid for doesn't work anymore. Why buy something only to have to trash it a year or so later?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 17, 2004.

Scruples are the principles by which we live our lives, and can also be understood as the dictates of conscience. An "unscrupulous" person is an unprincipled person, one who does not live by the dictates of conscience. Scupulosity therefore is a necessary characteristic of Christian life. Obviously Emerald was not suggesting otherwise. However, it is also possible to be overscrupulous, a condition which is both spiritually and psychologically unhealthy. That, I think, is what Emerald was referring to. I once counseled a young man who was on the threshold of despair because he could not remain free of mortal sin for five minutes - or so he believed. He was going to confession several times a day. As soon as he came out of the confessional his eyes might be drawn to a pretty girl on the street, or an uncharitable thought might enter his head, and he believed he was once again on the road to hell, and so he headed back to confession. This was scrupulosity gone wild. Though this case is unusually extreme, I have met a number of other people who were qualitatively similar, even if quantitatively less severe. They were not just sincerely concerned about remaining free of sin, as we all should be, but worried themselves sick over it. That is not how God wants us to live. That is not living life to the fullest.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

I agree Paul. Being scrupulous is a good thing, but being obsessively over-scrupulous is not what God wants of us.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (Sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 17, 2004.

Your sinful friend Gene previously advised you, and Scoop for sure, to study the subject of false scruples. There is such a thing; and I believe Scoop is one example of obssession with scruples, false or not; and the placing of blame on they who fail to trust in his wisdom. That numbers more Catholics than me, I think.

It doesn't bother me one bit. In Holy Mass we hear the prayer to Our Father in heaven; '''Deliver us Father, from all sin and undue anxiety,'' promising our complete trust in His Wisdom and Mercy. I am a lover of the Mass, I hope you know. I take every word in it dead serious; and probably Scoop does sometimes.

I am not given to undue anxieties over trivial matters. My faith is Catholic to the bone, and when I've sinned nobody has to tell me. Not even if it's a blundering, unpremeditated, insignificant sin. (They happen to us!)

When I'm guilty of ANY sin, I do not need fanatical accusations from Savonarola, or from Scoops. They can deliver me over to be burned and I will STILL laugh at them.

We discuss Catholicism and faith here in this forum. If I see a speck in somebody's eye, I forgive him/her. I like to carry on serious discussions. God; Christ, Grace, our Holy Church. Not grumbles from the peanut gallery.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2004.

Not closing your tags is also a major sin Eugene...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@Twocents.cam), January 17, 2004.

. . . Mea culpa, mea culpa, me culpa! Lol! Don't tell the Scooper. I don't want to upset him/her. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2004.

...sin no more, and avoid the near occasion of sin.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

It's a mea MAXIMA culpa for you, Emerald.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2004.

Misereatur tui Omnipotens Deus, et dimissis peccatis tuis, perducat te in vitam aeternum. Amen.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 18, 2004.

Si.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2004.

Sit tibi, Domine, obsecro, meritis beatae semper Virginis Genetricis tuae Mariae et omnium Sanctorum, grata et accepta ista confessio mea, et quidquid mihi defuit nunc, et de sufficientia contritionis, de puritate et integritate confessionis.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 18, 2004.

This guy is veritably papabile! Anoint him right away, while he still knows everything!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2004.

It's tempting... haha!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

Wow, I had to go all the back up to Sara. What ARE you guys doing? What's with all the foreign language?

Over-scrupulosity suggests an accute "self-consciousness" which will eclipse your view of the Lord, and after all our gaze upon HIM, is what cures our ills!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

Just goofing off; sorry. Jake's Latin phrase:

I beseech Thee, O Lord, that my confession may be made acceptable and pleasing to Thee by the merits of Thy blessed and ever Virgin Mother and all the Saints. May Thy compassion and mercy fulfill whatever may be lacking in me in contrition, purity, or completeness of confession.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 19, 2004.