Cardinal Marx: Church should see positive aspects of homosexual relationships [CWN]

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Thank you for your explanation but I see things differently. I find it hard to believe that the "action of a human "does not cause sin. A mentally ill person may not be able to know right from wrong, but all other thinking human beings can know and should know how to make the right choices. The commandments are there for all to follow. If you are an atheist and you murder a person, you will be responsible for your actions even if you do not think it is a sin.

I believe it is too easy to make excuses for sins if we can just say that the intention was good and the heart was pure but then continue to sin with the body. When the body is pure the heart is pure, the two are not separate in my opinion. I feel the greatest sin would be on a person who led someone on the path to a sinful life, or knew someone who had lost his way and is involved in grave sin and did not try to correct that person. I believe we are all responsible for the souls of others and we should pray for their soul even if we cannot change their ways. We cannot be sure that person is within God’s loving arms, only God can know that.

Only some people have an obligation to engage in fraternal correction such as parents and priests because many other people lack the knowledge to make the situation better and instead would make it worse. By this point pretty much everyone knows the Church is opposed to gay sex so telling people that accomplishes very little.

 

[Brendan]

Only some people have an obligation to engage in fraternal correction such as parents and priests because many other people lack the knowledge to make the situation better and instead would make it worse. By this point pretty much everyone knows the Church is opposed to gay sex so telling people that accomplishes very little.

But how many know the WHY the Church opposes gay sex? Should we not tell them the WHY?

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you for your explanation but I see things differently. I find it hard to believe that the "action of a human "does not cause sin. A mentally ill person may not be able to know right from wrong, but all other thinking human beings can know and should know how to make the right choices. The commandments are there for all to follow. If you are an atheist and you murder a person, you will be responsible for your actions even if you do not think it is a sin.

I believe it is too easy to make excuses for sins if we can just say that the intention was good and the heart was pure but then continue to sin with the body. When the body is pure the heart is pure, the two are not separate in my opinion. I feel the greatest sin would be on a person who led someone on the path to a sinful life, or knew someone who had lost his way and is involved in grave sin and did not try to correct that person. I believe we are all responsible for the souls of others and we should pray for their soul even if we cannot change their ways. We cannot be sure that person is within God’s loving arms, only God can know that.

I’m sorry but your understanding is mistaken and does not reflect the doctrine of the Church as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I bolded some key points):

1857 **For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”**131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

It should be pointed out that this Catechism was promulgated, and signed by a canonized saint of the Church, Saint John Paul II.

Moreover it is not some sort of “modernist” revision of sin. The Baltimore Catechism says essentially the same thing:

1. Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

So you see you are quite mistaken. Ignorance, and external factors have always been able to reduce the culpability of sin. What is objective is the gravity of the matter and all grave matter carries the potential of making sin mortal but it doesn’t always do so; that is why the Church, in the current catechism, takes the effort to use precise language: grave matter refers to the objective nature of the sin, and mortal sin is a grave sin that meets the other two conditions. It is not therefore possible to see someone engaged in same-sex relations as sinning mortally. The only thing we are capable of saying is that they are sinning gravely. Only their confessor(s), with sufficient information, can assess with some degree of probability that their sin is mortal or not, and the final judgment of course rests with God.

Culpability has always been subjective. It is of course open to debate as to what can interfere with free consent of the will. However that is a debate that best takes place in the privacy of the confessional with one’s confessor, but a good example is addiction, such as to drugs or alcohol. Even disordered sex sometimes can fall into the category of addiction.

If we stick to the actual teachings of the Church and not our personal opinions about matters, debate on such subjects is much more constructive.

 

[JosieN]

I’m sorry but your understanding is mistaken and does not reflect the doctrine of the Church as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I bolded some key points):

It should be pointed out that this Catechism was promulgated, and signed by a canonized saint of the Church, Saint John Paul II.

Moreover it is not some sort of “modernist” revision of sin. The Baltimore Catechism says essentially the same thing:

So you see you are quite mistaken. Ignorance, and external factors have always been able to reduce the culpability of sin. What is objective is the gravity of the matter and all grave matter carries the potential of making sin mortal but it doesn’t always do so; that is why the Church, in the current catechism, takes the effort to use precise language: grave matter refers to the objective nature of the sin, and mortal sin is a grave sin that meets the other two conditions. It is not therefore possible to see someone engaged in same-sex relations as sinning mortally. The only thing we are capable of saying is that they are sinning gravely. Only their confessor(s), with sufficient information, can assess with some degree of probability that their sin is mortal or not, and the final judgment of course rests with God.

Culpability has always been subjective. It is of course open to debate as to what can interfere with free consent of the will. However that is a debate that best takes place in the privacy of the confessional with one’s confessor, but a good example is addiction, such as to drugs or alcohol. Even disordered sex sometimes can fall into the category of addiction.

If we stick to the actual teachings of the Church and not our personal opinions about matters, debate on such subjects is much more constructive.

Thank you for your reply. It was helpful to explain things for me. It is interesting.how the Baltimore Catechism has a much smaller definition of mortal sin

**56. Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.
**

I think the larger and longer definition opens the door to a wider interpretation of a mortal sin, it may be helpful in some ways, but I believe it adds confusion for the average person to understand. Are you saying then that because disordered sex sometimes falls into the category of addiction, it is now possible to see someone engaged in same-sex relations as not sinning mortally, only gravely? I realize these questions are best to ask a priest, but us sinners should also understand what makes a sin mortal. I hope it does not appear I am telling the priest how to do his job, as you say culpability is subjective. I was only expressing my opinion earlier.

So to the question I originally asked on this forum, the answer would be yes, because what is considered grave is now is open to a more wider more merciful meaning.

Here is my original question from a few posts back in this forum.

“Are you saying a “mortal sin” is not really mortal (meaning one goes to hell when one commits one) because it all depends on other factors, whereas in the past it was known to cause a loss of the soul unless confessed?”

Would you then agree a grave sin still needs to be confessed, even if it is considered an addiction? Also, how grave does a sin need to be for one to go to his priest for confession and forgiveness? Can they still receive Holy Communion without going to confession? God knows and sees all, I think a confession is always necessary when there is doubt about a sin, also in the confession we say we are sorry and will try our best not to sin again. These may seem like obvious questions to you, but I am curious and looking for answers. I guess that is why I like the Catholic Answers forum, people are willing to offer their opinions and provide answers for me.

 

[kozlosap]

It’s an occasion for gratitude to ponder a life where Mass opportunities are infrequent. To me, missing Mass is akin to expecting to go to Confession, but all of a sudden not having access to a Priest. I honestly haven’t heard that missing Mass is open for debate without the above-mentioned reasons like health, or perhaps distance, etc.?

God-willing, there may be an opportunity to celebrate Mass at the chapel! Not to hijack this thread, but I was shocked when I learned that some family members, who no longer practice, didn’t know that skipping Mass was considered a mortal sin! I can understand why some people might think it very silly, and I’ve also heard it’s just the Church’s way of keeping people in control, but I was genuinely surprised to hear it coming people who received a similar education to mine. I assumed they knew. Maybe I just paid attention in class.

You could also use the property to help those who are not as blessed as most of us here are, like to shelter a homeless family.

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you for your reply. It was helpful to explain things for me. It is interesting.how the Baltimore Catechism has a much smaller definition of mortal sin

**56. Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.
**

I think the larger and longer definition opens the door to a wider interpretation of a mortal sin, it may be helpful in some ways, but I believe it adds confusion for the average person to understand. Are you saying then that because disordered sex sometimes falls into the category of addiction, it is now possible to see someone engaged in same-sex relations as not sinning mortally, only gravely? I realize these questions are best to ask a priest, but us sinners should also understand what makes a sin mortal. I hope it does not appear I am telling the priest how to do his job, as you say culpability is subjective. I was only expressing my opinion earlier.

So to the question I originally asked on this forum, the answer would be yes, because what is considered grave is now is open to a more wider more merciful meaning.

Here is my original question from a few posts back in this forum.

“Are you saying a “mortal sin” is not really mortal (meaning one goes to hell when one commits one) because it all depends on other factors, whereas in the past it was known to cause a loss of the soul unless confessed?”

Would you then agree a grave sin still needs to be confessed, even if it is considered an addiction? Also, how grave does a sin need to be for one to go to his priest for confession and forgiveness? Can they still receive Holy Communion without going to confession? God knows and sees all, I think a confession is always necessary when there is doubt about a sin, also in the confession we say we are sorry and will try our best not to sin again. These may seem like obvious questions to you, but I am curious and looking for answers. I guess that is why I like the Catholic Answers forum, people are willing to offer their opinions and provide answers for me.

The Baltimore Catechism is a compendium, in Q&A format. The current Catechism is also released in compendium form as a summary. It says about mortal sin:

1. When does one commit a mortal sin?

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.

It really says exactly the same thing as the Baltimore Catechism. What matters is not your opinion on it. What matters is what the Church teaches. The reason I’m sort of coming out of “retirement” to post this is because I believe that there is a risk that erroneous opinions will lead some to the sin of despair.

I’m not interested in debating opinion on what is a matter of magisterial teaching of the Church. Any nuances on subjective culpability are not a matter of personal opinion of untrained laity. They are a matter between penitent and confessor.

If you don’t agree with the Church’s definition of mortal sin, then that doctrinally puts you at odds with the Church, which I am sure is not your intention to do.

But to answer your question on what and when to confess, the Compendium of the CCC says this:

1. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness.

Determinations culpability and ongoing means of dealing with habitual sin would then be between penitent and confessor, and is not something laity reasonably determine on an Internet forum.

 

[JimG]

If one were to ask someone of my generation—the Baltimore Catechism generation—what is a mortal sin, we would immediately list such things as adultery, fornication, murder, major theft, assault, robbery, burglary, and any number of things we knew were seriously wrong.

Yes, we knew then, and still know, the three requirements for culpability, but in asking what is a mortal sin it is assumed that one is asking what is serious matter. So it’s a shorthand way of speaking, but it’s a way of delineating right from wrong, objectively good actions from objectively bad actions. Nobody’s soul is being judged. Actions are being judged. Yes, one might be not fully culpable of murder by reason of insanity or lack of reflection, but murder still belongs on the list of mortal sins. Same with any other serious matter.

Now, it seems that if one were to ask what is a mortal sin, the answer might be something like, “We can’t possibly know that, because we don’t know the degree of knowledge or degree of consent on the part of the perpetrator.” I hope that people still do know objective right from wrong. But it seems not to be a sure bet anymore.

 

[Seamus_L]

Exactly JimG Everything is being turned into one vast gray area.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thank you for your explanation but I see things differently.

Josie you are of course free to see things differently from Church Teaching.
I am just advising you what the words you use actually mean to the experts and that the way you string them together in fact contradicts both Church Teaching and practice.

I find it hard to believe that the "action of a human "does not cause sin.

This is generally true but not necessarily so. The problem is you do not allow for exceptions - and these exceptions happen quite a lot as any pastorally experienced older priest will tell you.

We all find some aspects of Church Teaching not to our liking or which we cannot fathom. I suggest the truly loyal approach to such difficulties is humility and a willingness to listen to what people more experienced and theologically educated persons than ourselves have to say and reflect on these things in our heart. Making blanket moral statements in a public forum that condemns most people (including Catholics) to hell if they don’t see things as I do probably isn’t the most helpful of approaches .

I believe it is too easy to make excuses for sins…

May I kindly suggest the only person God would wish you to make such moral judgements upon is oneself. Logs, darnel and all such parables suggest this.

When the body is pure the heart is pure, the two are not separate in my opinion.

You’ve just defined Pharisaism and the minutiae of the Mosaic Law … both of which Jesus purposefully flouted to the consternation of many.

I feel the greatest sin would be on a person who led someone on the path to a sinful life, or knew someone who had lost his way and is involved in grave sin and did not try to correct that person.

I feel the greatest sin is the blind leading the blind rather than leaving it up to God or his well educated and pastorally experienced clergy.

 

[openmind77]

But how many know the WHY the Church opposes gay sex? Should we not tell them the WHY?

Actually that is a good question. Why does the Church oppose gay sex?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the larger and longer definition opens the door to a wider interpretation of a mortal sin, it may be helpful in some ways, but I believe it adds confusion for the average person to understand.

I believe confusion is only with Catholics who have not received living, systematic Catechetical teaching from an educated teacher since their school days but rely on personal intelligence and book learning alone.

Are you saying then that because disordered sex sometimes falls into the category of addiction, it is now possible to see someone engaged in same-sex relations as not sinning mortally only gravely?

Correct. And it is not as if this is a new understanding…it has always been an implicit conclusion of correctly taught moral theology Josie. Unfortunately it seems to many Catholics do not understand moral theology well enough or are too prejudiced to see the implicit conclusions for themselves.

Would you then agree a grave sin still needs to be confessed, even if it is considered an addiction?

This is an insightful question Josie. The Catechism, Canon Law and other Confessional guidelines are purposely ambiguous on this point. They talk about having to if I myself am conscious “of serious sin.”

So I believe a good catholic will go to Confession whenever they are aware of having engaged in grave matter - regardless of whether we personally believe culpability is minimal or not.

Also, how grave does a sin need to be for one to go to his priest for confession and forgiveness?

We all know the grave sins are those that go against the Commandments.

Can they still receive Holy Communion without going to confession?

If one engages in grave matter but truly believes one’s culpability is minimal then I see no intrinsic reason for not receiving for one can still be in a state of grace.

However, as above, Canon Law requires good Catholics to go to confession regardless. This is good advice, if we regularly break one of the Commandments we need a Spiritual advisor to keep us honest. That of course means a real relationship with our Confessor, not an anonymous hit and run job that some more mechanistic Catholics engage in.

This is what Pope Francis means by a theology of “accompanyment.”
Confession is not really meant to be an ATM machine transaction.

 

[meltzerboy]

If one were to ask someone of my generation—the Baltimore Catechism generation—what is a mortal sin, we would immediately list such things as adultery, fornication, murder, major theft, assault, robbery, burglary, and any number of things we knew were seriously wrong.

Yes, we knew then, and still know, the three requirements for culpability, but in asking what is a mortal sin it is assumed that one is asking what is serious matter. So it’s a shorthand way of speaking, but it’s a way of delineating right from wrong, objectively good actions from objectively bad actions. Nobody’s soul is being judged. Actions are being judged. Yes, one might be not fully culpable of murder by reason of insanity or lack of reflection, but murder still belongs on the list of mortal sins. Same with any other serious matter.

Now, it seems that if one were to ask what is a mortal sin, the answer might be something like, “We can’t possibly know that, because we don’t know the degree of knowledge or degree of consent on the part of the perpetrator.” I hope that people still do know objective right from wrong. But it seems not to be a sure bet anymore.

Old habits, including the way one believes terms are defined and the way one uses those terms, apparently die hard. It seems to me, however, that Father DR is teaching you (that is, Catholics) that it is important to tread lightly in judging even another’s actions which may appear to be mortal sins. This is because one does not necessarily know the circumstances surrounding those actions, circumstances involving knowledge and consent which may mitigate their sinful nature.

 

[meltzerboy]

Exactly JimG Everything is being turned into one vast gray area.

In one sense, perhaps. But in another sense, everything is being more clearly and sharply defined.

 

[JimG]

Old habits, including the way one believes terms are defined and the way one uses those terms, apparently die hard. It seems to me, however, that Father DR is teaching you (that is, Catholics) that it is important to tread lightly in judging even another’s actions which may appear to be mortal sins. This is because one does not necessarily know the circumstances surrounding those actions, circumstances involving knowledge and consent which may mitigate their sinful nature.

Of course. That is not a new understanding. If someone were to ask me if adultery is a mortal sin I would say yes. If they were to point to a particular person and ask me the state of their soul, I would ay I don’t know, that is for God to judge. This is nothing new. Yet it remains true that some actions are seriously wrong in themselves, regardless of personal culpability.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, we knew then, and still know, the three requirements for culpability, but in asking what is a mortal sin it is assumed that one is asking what is serious matter.

I humbly disagree Jim. There are numerous self appointed teachers on CAF who clearly do not understand the assumption you are aware of and consider ALL contraceptors, aborters, drinkers and homosexuals as on a conveyor belt to hell with no graced relationship to God. This is clearly not Church Teaching but many will not agree with me.

Yes, one might be not fully culpable of murder by reason of insanity or lack of reflection, but murder still belongs on the list of mortal sins. Same with any other serious matter.

While I understand what you are trying to say here you’ve picked a very difficult example. “Murder” by definition involves culpability (intentional killing of the innocent). So it is both grave matter and a mortal sin always. Now if you had chosen “killing” that might be a clearer example. And the 5th Commandment is more about “killing” not “murder”. Magisterial Teaching almost always translates this Commandment as “thou shall not kill”. So any killing is grave matter, but not necessarily a mortal sin.

I hope that people still do know objective right from wrong.

I hope that people still know the difference between objective right/wrong and subjective sin/grace. I fear many do not.

 

[graciew]

I hope that people still know the difference between objective right/wrong and subjective sin/grace. I fear many do not.

Could you go ahead and explain it in the positive,Blue? Objective right and such. Thanks! You are very clear

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. That is not a new understanding. If someone were to ask me if adultery is a mortal sin I would say yes. If they were to point to a particular person and ask me the state of their soul, I would ay I don’t know, that is for God to judge. This is nothing new. Yet it remains true that some actions are seriously wrong in themselves, regardless of personal culpability.

Couldn’t have said it better meself!

Non-Catholic CAF Poster: does the Catholic Church teach that using artificial contraception is a mortal sin?

PRmerger: yes. It is indeed a mortal sin to use artificial contraception.

NCCAFP: that person over there–the one that’s buying Loestrin? Is she going to hell?

PRmerger: I have no idea. That’s beyond my paygrade.

 

[graciew]

Couldn’t have said it better meself!

Non-Catholic CAF Poster: does the Catholic Church teach that using artificial contraception is a mortal sin?

PRmerger: yes. It is indeed a mortal sin to use artificial contraception.

NCCAFP: that person over there–the one that’s buying Loestrin? Is she going to hell?

PRmerger: I have no idea. That’s beyond my paygrade.

And you both mention the fact that you have been asked. This makes a big difference in conversation

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

But how many know the WHY the Church opposes gay sex? Should we not tell them the WHY?

Why does She? Why does She oppose gay marriage? Is fornication also unnatural and intrinsically disordered? Is homosexuality intrinsically disordered? If so, why so, if not, why not? What does intrinsically disordered mean anyway? If it is not intrinsically disordered and instead objectively disordered then what does objectively disordered mean? To what degree is it objectively disordered?

If one were to ask someone of my generation—the Baltimore Catechism generation—what is a mortal sin, we would immediately list such things as adultery, fornication, murder, major theft, assault, robbery, burglary, and any number of things we knew were seriously wrong.

Yes, we knew then, and still know, the three requirements for culpability, but in asking what is a mortal sin it is assumed that one is asking what is serious matter. So it’s a shorthand way of speaking, but it’s a way of delineating right from wrong, objectively good actions from objectively bad actions. Nobody’s soul is being judged. Actions are being judged. Yes, one might be not fully culpable of murder by reason of insanity or lack of reflection, but murder still belongs on the list of mortal sins. Same with any other serious matter.

Now, it seems that if one were to ask what is a mortal sin, the answer might be something like, “We can’t possibly know that, because we don’t know the degree of knowledge or degree of consent on the part of the perpetrator.” I hope that people still do know objective right from wrong. But it seems not to be a sure bet anymore.

I’ve met far too many people on this forum who can’t seem to tell the difference between grave matter and mortal sin, indeed I’ve seen people claim “a near occasion of sin is sin” and they do seem to like to judge.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

real questions is does a sick or ignorant conscience override the concept of natural law. In this case I don’t believe it does.