Amen to that, Jeanette.Now there you go judging.
You do not know the heart or intentions of his actions. According to our own Church’s teaching, these things are of utmost importance in regard to an action being accounted as sin. Only GOD can judge these things. I’m not seeing him posting His judgements here for us.
To be Judge is dangerous territory to be treading on it seems.
If they are translated then I can give it a shot!
Yes, there is a difference. Private sins, such as solitary impure acts, may be repented of privately, but public sins, such as endorsing schism, must be repented of publicly. Public repentance consists of, to the best of your ability, telling everyone who knew that you committed the sin that you no longer think that the sin is morally right, and that you will no longer commit the sin in question.Does the Church differentiate between public and private repentance?
Just Curious
Hold on. Kissing the Quran is not materially sinful. For there to be sin three conditions must be met.
This is not the practice of the Catholic Church. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister and Anglican he endorsed abortion and same-sex marriage. When he became a Catholic that Vatican was asked if he would be required to publically recant. Pope Benedict himself said, “no”. The official response from the Vatican was that they knew Mr. Blair’s position on these issues and that they believed that he still has some developing to do in the faith. That was it.
Those are the conditions for mortal sin, not material sin.Hold on. Kissing the Quran is not materially sinful. For there to be sin three conditions must be met.
Finally, to deny anyone the opportunity to share the glory of the saints is a horrible thing, if they deserve it. We have to look at a persons journey, not an isolated act. Let’s not forget people like Augustine who had a bastard son whom he abandoned or Paul who participatead in the murders of Christians and Jews or the man who raped Maria Goerreti who later lived a very holy life as a Franciscan. The Church takes the big picture into consideration, not isolated events.
- The matter must be grave. This matter is not grave in the teachings of the Catholic Church. It was not an act of worship. Just because it looks serious to some people, doesn’t mean that it is serious to the Congregation on the Causes of Saints. To them this is not materially sinful. Even if something is materially sinful, the Church does not require a public confession.
- The individual must have full knowledge. I have no doubt that Pope John Paul II had full knowledge of what constitutes materially sinful and what does not. Given his life and spirituality, it would be most inconsistent that he would commit a grave sin with full knowledge.
- The person must have complete freedom (psychological, physical, spirtual and intellectual, to avoid the sin. If this was a sin, the Pope had complete freedom to avoid it. We go back to his track record of his entire life. This was a man who spent his life avoiding sin as much or more than the rest of us. Therefore, it is unjust to think or believe that he deliberately gave in to a grave sin in such a public manner.
The Church understands that all of us make poor judgement calls. Saints are different only because they continue to get up and keep going. Each time they get up they become stronger. No where does it say that they become perfect. Only one saint in the history of the Church has ever been called the Saint of Saints. That was Francis of Assisi, also called the Mirror of Perfection. But there are few Francis’ of Assisi around, maybe Mother Teresa will be the next one. Even Mother Teresa and Francis began to struggle from the bottom up. They were not always as holy as they were when they died.
Look at the holiness of John Paul II by the time of his death, not just a single act.
JR
Pope says pro-choice lawmakers should be denied sacramentsThis is not the practice of the Catholic Church. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister and Anglican he endorsed abortion and same-sex marriage. When he became a Catholic that Vatican was asked if he would be required to publically recant. Pope Benedict himself said, “no”. The official response from the Vatican was that they knew Mr. Blair’s position on these issues and that they believed that he still has some developing to do in the faith. That was it.
We have never heard Tony Blair recant anything in public or asked to do so by the Church. Nor was Cardinal Law of Boston asked to recant anything after the sex abuse scandal broke out. Although the good Cardinal was not personally guilty of abusing anyone, he was charged with covering things up and poor administrative judgements in this regard. Cardinal Ratzinger said that this was more media hype than reality. It was only later that Ratzinger realized that it was a big problem. Nonetheless, he transferred the Cardinal to a Vatican post, but did not ask the Cardinal to recant.
Today, Fr. Hans Kung, stands by his position that the infallibility of the pope is a questionable dogma. He has never been asked to recant. He is a priest in good standing with the Church and a good friend of Pope Benedict XVI. Several weeks after Benedict’s election, the Pope invited Fr. Kung to visit with him at Castle Gandolfo. They discussed the days when they worked together at the university. The Pope also approved Fr. Kung’s new project to work on developing a universal ethic for ecumenism. This is prublic knowledge. The meeting took place in 2005. I’m not sure if Fr. Kung is still alive, as he is almost as old as Benedict or what happened with his project for a universal ethic.
The point is that he was not asked to recant, was never suspended from the priesthood and has been given permission to begin a project on ecumenism by Pope Benedict. The only thing that he lost was the license to teach as a Catholic Theologian. He may teach as a theologian, but may not call himself a Catholic Theologian. Therefore, he may not hold a teaching post that requires that the theologian be Catholic.
Public recanting of sins is not a practice of the Church today.
JR
Are you suggesting Blair converted to the Catholic Church without accepting* all* of it’s teachings on faith and morals? I thought a non-catholic Christian, when entering the Church, had to accept all the teachings of the Church. I was required, in the newer liturgical form, to state so publicly at the Easter Vigil mass when I was received .
He should have been excommunicated along with Father Charles Curran…
He is still alive
It should be required. This is a carry over from the “Spirit of Vatican II” whic is a toleration for error.
Are you implying that Charles Curran was excommunicated?
As I said to a friend of mine very recently concerning these kinds of posts:
Material sin the the official term that moral theology uses to discuss both mortal and venial sin.
Yes indeed.
**Equally, the government has not attempted to limit abortion rights - an issue regarded as long settled in Britain except by some mainly Catholic groups - or pushed for reduced time limits, even though the church regards abortion as a sin. And it has permitted stem cell research without conceding to Catholic opposition.
“Saint Gemma” is after Saint Gemma Galgani, as my father does not allow me to use my real name on internet forums.Dear Saint Gemma
I happen to know a few SSPXers and I am afraid that your mindset is still leaning in that direction.
People who stay with that group for any length of time are very hard put for any kind of “Romanizing”. The propanganda that they instill in the minds of their laity is a sort of 'brainwashing" that is hard to let go of, so as your feelings of JP11.
I get that you’re totally against JP11 getting canonized, is this correct?
It really is beyond me that you’re so against His Holiness being canonized but you call yourself “SAINT” Gemma. Do we all get to vote on *your *canonization?
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying is that he was never asked to make a public statement or to recant in public.
While I am against the canonization of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, if he is canonized I will submit to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Why is that SSPX brainwashing?Dear Saint Gemma
I happen to know a few SSPXers and I am afraid that your mindset is still leaning in that direction.
People who stay with that group for any length of time are very hard put for any kind of “Romanizing”. The propanganda that they instill in the minds of their laity is a sort of 'brainwashing" that is hard to let go of, so as your feelings of JP11.
I get that you’re totally against JP11 getting canonized, is this correct?
It really is beyond me that you’re so against His Holiness being canonized but you call yourself “SAINT” Gemma. Do we all get to vote on *your *canonization?
Our Holy Father likes him very much and respects him. Fr. Kung was our Holy Father’s first boss. He hired Joseph Ratzinger to teach his first year as a professor of theology. They go way back.