Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

[The Archregimancy]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

Welcome to the Orthodox Church.

Well, heretic might be going a little far (some in the Orthodox Church have attempted to make that argument, but it requires rejecting canons of the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils, so isn't a widespread view), but I think you'll find that your basic observations about Augustine and Manicheanism are very close to a commonplace within Orthodoxy; which is why we've never been as influenced by Augustine as Western Christianity.

[The Archregimancy]

-snip-

With regards to Can. 1364 §1, "heretic[s]" are considered excommunicated. Can. 751 defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith". Pope St. John Paul II issued, in 1998, Ad tuendam fidem, and Cardinal Ratzinger published a commentary to further clarify it. In this, it is made clear that it is a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" that abortion is gravely immoral. Denial of such thus constitutes heresy and heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The immorality of the death penalty is not generally considered a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (although it is certainly shameful that so many Catholics still support it), and as thus those supporting it are not excommunicated.

I'm sorry, but this just makes me think of Matthew 23.

But again, I'm not Catholic; so I'm not sure my opinion entirely matters here.

[Auze]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

It's hard for me to tell, so I'm just gonna ask: are you including bans on sex outside of marriage in this rant? Because if not, then both we and the Puritans don't/didn't believe in that. I mean, us Mormons are heretics either way, but I just want to confirm the level of heresy you think we're on.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

Welcome to the Orthodox Church.

Well, heretic might be going a little far (some in the Orthodox Church have attempted to make that argument, but it requires rejecting canons of the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils, so isn't a widespread view), but I think you'll find that your basic observations about Augustine and Manicheanism are very close to a commonplace within Orthodoxy; which is why we've never been as influenced by Augustine as Western Christianity.

Oh, neat. I've always been more sympathetic to the Eastern Churches anyway.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

It's hard for me to tell, so I'm just gonna ask: are you including bans on sex outside of marriage in this rant? Because if not, then both we and the Puritans don't/didn't believe in that. I mean, us Mormons are heretics either way, but I just want to confirm the level of heresy you think we're on.

Well, sex outside of marriage is an iffy thing for me. On the one hand I don't consider it a "sin", per se, but I do recognize that often times sex outside marriage is out of an act of lust (prostitution, friends with benefits, sleeping around, etc.) but sometimes it can also be a symbol of love and commitment, such as having sex with someone you love. In the latter case I think it's not necessarily right nor wrong, but it's excusable as long as the love between the two people is genuine.

Obviously sex in marriage is preferred and better, though. IMO there's nothing wrong with having sex with someone you love even if it's not for procreation. The sin of Lust comes from having sex with people you aren't in a committed relationship with, or alternatively during adultery.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

With regards to Can. 1364 §1, "heretic[s]" are considered excommunicated. Can. 751 defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith". Pope St. John Paul II issued, in 1998, Ad tuendam fidem, and Cardinal Ratzinger published a commentary to further clarify it. In this, it is made clear that it is a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" that abortion is gravely immoral. Denial of such thus constitutes heresy and heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The immorality of the death penalty is not generally considered a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (although it is certainly shameful that so many Catholics still support it), and as thus those supporting it are not excommunicated.

I'm sorry, but this just makes me think of Matthew 23.

But again, I'm not Catholic; so I'm not sure my opinion entirely matters here.

Well, the argument is not that supporting the death penalty is OK for a Catholic, it's just that it's not heresy (but wrong nonetheless).

[Bienenhalde]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

Welcome to the Orthodox Church.

Well, heretic might be going a little far (some in the Orthodox Church have attempted to make that argument, but it requires rejecting canons of the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils, so isn't a widespread view), but I think you'll find that your basic observations about Augustine and Manicheanism are very close to a commonplace within Orthodoxy; which is why we've never been as influenced by Augustine as Western Christianity.

As long as the Orthodox Church condemns same-sex marriage and contraception, I don't really see how they have any ground for criticizing Augustine on the matter of his teachings regarding sex. Perhaps Saint Augustine was incorrect in his views, but I don't see how such views contradict the central tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

[Punished UMN]

-snip-

With regards to Can. 1364 §1, "heretic[s]" are considered excommunicated. Can. 751 defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith". Pope St. John Paul II issued, in 1998, Ad tuendam fidem, and Cardinal Ratzinger published a commentary to further clarify it. In this, it is made clear that it is a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" that abortion is gravely immoral. Denial of such thus constitutes heresy and heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The immorality of the death penalty is not generally considered a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (although it is certainly shameful that so many Catholics still support it), and as thus those supporting it are not excommunicated.

The issue of course is that heresy is not something one can do willy-nilly. You must be formally corrected by an ecclesiastical court in order to be a heretic. Simply not believing something is not enough.

[Salus Maior]

The difference here is that Biden would likely be under a state of Latae Sentientae excommunication for his support of the pro-choice movement. This happens automatically, and without needing any kind of statement from the clergy.

Now, one could probably debate what it means to be "Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty", but it's not far fetched to say that protecting or drafting laws which support the right to commit an act that incurs excommunication is being accomplice to that act.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of Trump either.

That's for the priest he confesses to to decide.

If he confesses.

But regardless he’s obviously not repentant about his abortion support and willingness to protect it.

[Salus Maior]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

Augustine might not be strictly correct about it, but that’s not exactly heresy to believe that.

There really isn’t a place in the Bible where it’s doctrinal that sex is to be enjoyed.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

With regards to Can. 1364 §1, "heretic[s]" are considered excommunicated. Can. 751 defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith". Pope St. John Paul II issued, in 1998, Ad tuendam fidem, and Cardinal Ratzinger published a commentary to further clarify it. In this, it is made clear that it is a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" that abortion is gravely immoral. Denial of such thus constitutes heresy and heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The immorality of the death penalty is not generally considered a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (although it is certainly shameful that so many Catholics still support it), and as thus those supporting it are not excommunicated.

The issue of course is that heresy is not something one can do willy-nilly. You must be formally corrected by an ecclesiastical court in order to be a heretic. Simply not believing something is not enough.

Not actually true. Can. 1323 only requires that the person is not "ignorant [without negligence]" that he violates a law or precept. This doesn't require "[formal correction] by an ecclesiastical court".

[Luminesa]

A nominal Catholic, sure.

I'm raising an eyebrow at the number of Catholics in this thread who seem to be uncomfortable with Biden's status as a fellow Catholic.

I acknowledge that Biden is on public record as disagreeing with at least one significant area of Catholic doctrine, but even if this means that that this makes him a bad Catholic - and one that you can't bring yourselves to vote for (though why anyone who foregrounds religion as the basis of their vote would prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden escapes me) - it surely doesn't make him a nominal or lapsed Catholic; just an imperfect one. And if you can find me a perfect Catholic, I'd very much like to meet them.

Obviously I'm not Catholic myself, so I may well have misunderstood, and I'm very prepared to be corrected on this point, but my understanding was that 'once baptised Catholic, always Catholic' (acknowledging the oversimplification) was a fairly basic point in Catholicism, and one specifically acknowledged in your catechism.

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation

Well he's most definitely A Catholic in the sense that he was baptized in the Catholic Church. We declare that an indelible mark on a person's soul from the moment it happens. He will never NOT be a Catholic. That part is correct. He has received a Catholic baptism, Catholic First Communion, Catholic Confirmation, and I would presume a Catholic marriage. These are all good and holy things which will always be a part of his soul.

However, Catholics in places of authority have a difficult spot, they have to represent the Faith as they are parts of the Body of Christ. I am not uncomfortable with Biden being a Catholic, per say, I'm uncomfortable that he is leading people astray into thinking, "You can believe this clear heresy that is not supported by the Church and still be in good standing with the Church." It goes a little in line with the verse from Ezekiel, or perhaps that is always the verse I have held in my heart as someone heading into education:

16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for[b] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself. (Ezekiel 3:16-19)

We have to be careful both to point toward the civil law and to point to the Catechism, but when there is a conflict between the two we must point to the Catechism. That is the part in which I fear Biden is lacking. Perhaps not in all matters of his platform, but the abortion one is a clear black mark on his record which devout Catholics cannot endorse.

That said I am most likely voting third party if I can manage. But this election, and this probably goes without saying, is going to be an incredibly difficult and painful one for many Christians and especially Catholics. I am glad that you, Arch, don't have to worry about it. We in the States who must vote would greatly appreciate prayers.

[Luminesa]

They're not going to care about his alleged Catholicism, because he doesn't actually believe in any of the important points of Catholicism and none of that is really part of his policy making.

(Emphasis mine) - I see how Biden isn't a true Catholic by his explicit rejection of certain portions of the Catholic position on social policy, saying he believes in none of the important points of Catholicism is something rather extra that I'd like explanation/citation on what you mean.

If someone were to campaign and was personally defined by Catholic values and that played a part of their political positions, that's when the bigotry comes out.

So, really, the bigotry is only on meaningful Catholicism. Not so much vague and limp Catholicism.

And to go back to what originally started this (the possibility of Barret being Trump's upcoming SCOTUS nominee), I have yet to really any evidence that she's being attacked on Catholic-specific grounds (for the weak definition of attack), but rather more generic uneasiness the American left has with the American religious right.

I believe that is probably the case. In any other year she'd get about as much controversy maybe as Gorsuch, probably not Kavanaugh due to there not being a whole lot of dirt on her. But this year is a trashfire and that makes everything worse. I pray that she manages, somehow.

Let us also remember that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being buried tomorrow, and we should pray for her soul as well. Antonin Scalia was one of her best friends. I am sure that he is praying for her, and thus we also must do the same. Only God holds that extraordinary graces which we cannot see this side of eternity, and we cannot know how RBG's particular judgment shall look. I'm sure it's been said before, but in this heated environment I think it's good to remember that prayer is always powerful, and Christ always has the last word.

[Kowani]

Snip

Totally unrelated, but reading that long paragraph gave me a question: Arch, do you have an accent?

[Luminesa]

Snip

Totally unrelated, but reading that long paragraph gave me a question: Arch, do you have an accent?

He's British, I imagine he does have a very proper one. Or that's how I read his posts.

[Luminesa]

You may not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway:

St. Augustine was a heretic. His views on sex and sexuality were influenced directly by his former Manichean faith, which condemns sex as something evil and unclean. Augustine imported these beliefs to Christianity and popularized them by cutting out the more heathen stuff (like how Manicheans found the virgin birth of Christ abhorrent and rejected it) and used the established sin of Lust to justify his claims. Passion in sex is not immoral or evil as he claimed it was; enjoying sex with someone you love is not at all sinful nor lustful and it's totally wrong to consider it as such. Augustine, the Puritans, Mormons, etc. are wrong about this.

You may burn me at the stake now if you wish.

Your post reminds me that I really should dive more into his writings and get to know this important saint to Western Christianity. I wish I could debate the topic more, but I can say that even the greatest of saints struggled with some sins or vices. St. Augustine struggled with passions, St. Jerome was basically Dr. House but a Christian (and far, far less promiscuous as he was an ascetic), and St. Francis de Sales-who is called the "Gentleman Saint"-had a fiery temper when pushed. That does not take away from their impact or from what they sought to do (and accomplished) in the Church.

[Kowani]

Totally unrelated, but reading that long paragraph gave me a question: Arch, do you have an accent?

He's British, I imagine he does have a very proper one. Or that's how I read his posts.

But…Arch is Scottish.

So I wanna know if he has a thick brogue because that would make reading his posts all the better.

[Luminesa]

He's British, I imagine he does have a very proper one. Or that's how I read his posts.

But…Arch is Scottish.

So I wanna know if he has a thick brogue because that would make reading his posts all the better.

I thought he was British! My mistake.

If Arch sounds like the Scotsman from Samurai Jack that would be beautiful.

[Lost Memories]

Obviously sex in marriage is preferred and better, though. IMO there's nothing wrong with having sex with someone you love even if it's not for procreation. The sin of Lust comes from having sex with people you aren't in a committed relationship with, or alternatively during adultery.

The understanding of vices has many facets, it isn't a simple do and don't. Vices are bad habits or mindsets/moods leading to sin.
Lust is a vice, while "You shall not commit adultery." or worded in other languages as "don't commit impure acts", is a sin from the ten commandments.

Lust can be seen as the desire of self-satisfaction, without any care for the person of others. Which leads to the sin of adultery, sodomy, etc.

I'm not sure how much St. Augustine meant lust as calling evil and unclean all sexuality, but in catholicism the nuance of lust is on lack of respect of the person.

Even if St. Augustine did hold that, since catholicism doesn't just read everything literally, but tries to understand and connect the points in a way to makes sense, St. Augustine can still be an important figure even if not 100% of what he said was all gold, and not all of it was taken as is.
I mean, perfect humans don't exist, and being a saint isn't about being perfect and without defect, but being a saint is about how much good they did.

[Salus Maior]

He's British, I imagine he does have a very proper one. Or that's how I read his posts.

But…Arch is Scottish.

So I wanna know if he has a thick brogue because that would make reading his posts all the better.

And Scotland is British?

British =/= English. In fact a lot of Scots would be offended by that implication.

[Salus Maior]

As for St. Augustine, I feel kind of bad for him.

I think a lot of his more bitter rhetoric comes from his lifelong struggle with his sexuality. It obviously wasn't very easy for him.

[Lord Dominator]

(Emphasis mine) - I see how Biden isn't a true Catholic by his explicit rejection of certain portions of the Catholic position on social policy, saying he believes in none of the important points of Catholicism is something rather extra that I'd like explanation/citation on what you mean.

And to go back to what originally started this (the possibility of Barret being Trump's upcoming SCOTUS nominee), I have yet to really any evidence that she's being attacked on Catholic-specific grounds (for the weak definition of attack), but rather more generic uneasiness the American left has with the American religious right.

I believe that is probably the case. In any other year she'd get about as much controversy maybe as Gorsuch, probably not Kavanaugh due to there not being a whole lot of dirt on her. But this year is a trashfire and that makes everything worse. I pray that she manages, somehow.

I think she'll be fine for the most part - so far as I've observed, those on the left seem to agree that the best strategy for them is to avoid anything about her specifically, and try and pin her on overturning Roe vs Wade (which the Democrats have the advantage on in terms of how Americans feel) and ACA.

Let us also remember that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being buried tomorrow, and we should pray for her soul as well. Antonin Scalia was one of her best friends. I am sure that he is praying for her, and thus we also must do the same. Only God holds that extraordinary graces which we cannot see this side of eternity, and we cannot know how RBG's particular judgment shall look. I'm sure it's been said before, but in this heated environment I think it's good to remember that prayer is always powerful, and Christ always has the last word.

Indeed

[Luminesa]

I believe that is probably the case. In any other year she'd get about as much controversy maybe as Gorsuch, probably not Kavanaugh due to there not being a whole lot of dirt on her. But this year is a trashfire and that makes everything worse. I pray that she manages, somehow.

I think she'll be fine for the most part - so far as I've observed, those on the left seem to agree that the best strategy for them is to avoid anything about her specifically, and try and pin her on overturning Roe vs Wade (which the Democrats have the advantage on in terms of how Americans feel) and ACA.

Let us also remember that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being buried tomorrow, and we should pray for her soul as well. Antonin Scalia was one of her best friends. I am sure that he is praying for her, and thus we also must do the same. Only God holds that extraordinary graces which we cannot see this side of eternity, and we cannot know how RBG's particular judgment shall look. I'm sure it's been said before, but in this heated environment I think it's good to remember that prayer is always powerful, and Christ always has the last word.

Indeed

I apologize, quick note, she will be buried beside her husband next week at Arlington National Cemetery. But the rest of the post still stands. :3

[Lost Memories]

Some quick enunciation of the basics, since we got for a short while into talking about lust, and it should be clarified what is a sin and what is a vice.

Sins are evil actions. Vices are perverse tendencies.
(somehow in english there isn't much nuance between the two, vices get lost into sin, but they are different)

The violation of one of the ten commandments is a mortal sin.
If not confessed and corrected, being in a state of grave/mortal sin when dying leads to hell.

You will have no other God but me.
Do not mention God's name in vain.
Remember to sanctify the feasts.
Honor the father and the mother.
Do not kill.
Do not commit impure acts.
Do not steal.
Do not say perjury.
Do not desire the woman of others.
Do not desire the stuff of others.

Vices are the opposite of spiritual virtues, they are tendencies which corrupt the soul, and cloud the conscience, interfering with the ability to recognize evil and good, or interfering with the ability to do good and refrain evil.
Vices are not sins (understood as isolated actions), but vices inevitably lead to sin.
The vices could be understood as sins, in the sense of corruption of the soul given by God, or they can be seen as sins as violations of the commandment of Jesus "love your neighbor like yourself", but the main caracteristic of vices is to generate sin. (tendency, leads to action, but actions can also set up a new tendency)

Pride: deep-rooted conviction of one's own superiority, real or presumed, which translates into an attitude of haughty detachment or even ostentatious contempt towards others, as well as contempt of norms, laws, with respect to others.

Anger: alteration of the emotional state that violently manifests a deep and vindictive aversion to something or someone. Ease to fall into said state of rage, and difficulty to get out of it.

Envy: sadness for the good of others, perceived as own harm. Desire for harm to befall those who are happy, to drag others down to one own misery.

Lust: uncontrolled sensuality, uncontrollable desire for sexual pleasure as an end in itself, lust, carnality, excessive attachment to earthly goods and excessive reluctance to separate from them.

Gluttony: it is not only the mere abandonment and exaggeration in the pleasures of the table, or the total loss of the sense of measure, and therefore the loss of the ability to feel real pleasure for what you are tasting, but also gluttony in its purest sense, unrelated to food. It can be described as insatiability on all levels, therefore both material and spiritual. It's when one always feels empty inside.

Sloth: melancholic torpor, inertia in living and doing good works, laziness, indolence, listlessness, abulia.

Avarice: deriving from the Latin etymology "avaritia", linked to the hunger for riches: cupidity, constant sense of dissatisfaction for what one already has and unbridled need to obtain more and more.

All the vices are linked to the lack of God in one life. Whereas all the vices are resolved by the presence of God inside life.

(i have translated them all from a language different from english on purpose, to give less importance to words, or plain memorization, and more importance on the meaning expressed)

That's how it's understood in catholicism.
The vices are concepts which anticipate sin, acting on vices can help to prevent sin. And generally, since vices are the opposite of virtues, acting on vices is how one can lead a more virtuous life.