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

[Blue_Horizon]

This is a dangerous way to phrase this. … Grave offenses that somehow** IF** they are saved in spite of those sinful actions, they will still spend much time and suffering in Purgatory for them.

This is not Catholic Teaching ZZ.
Non imputable deeds of grave matter may not even be venial sins in some cases.
Whence then the dire consequences of purgatory you speak of?
Whence then the grave offence against God?

Obviously there may still be negative temporal consequences from unforgiving men on earth…Eye for eye, Pharisees in power, older brother types and so on. Restitution or legitimate civil punishment may also be required.
But God all the same continues to grace those with impaired understanding or who do not consent interiorly as the CCC and Pope Francis clearly teach.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1 John:16 If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose** sin is not mortal**. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but** there is sin that is not mortal**.

Yes Catholic Teaching on mortal sin obviously involves this text.
However the scholastic medieval phrase we use today “mortal sin” is not exactly the same as that concept used in 1John. Nor is the phrase in 1Jn always well translated from Greek in your translation above. The expression is better rendered as “sin leading to death”. This is more ambiguous than the scholastic phrase.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have no idea what this means.

Not to worry PR, the more knowledgeable Catholics you speak of may like to help you if you ask them. Even the brightest of us at times cannot see what is right in front of us .

 

[JosieN]

This is not Catholic Teaching ZZ.
Non imputable deeds of grave matter may not even be venial sins in some cases.
Whence then the dire consequences of purgatory you speak of?
Whence then the grave offence against God?

Obviously there may still be negative temporal consequences from unforgiving men on earth…Eye for eye, Pharisees in power, older brother types and so on. Restitution or legitimate civil punishment may also be required.
But God all the same continues to grace those with impaired understanding or who do not consent interiorly as the CCC and Pope Francis clearly teach.

No one can be sure which actions of sin are non imputable deeds of grave matter or that they may not even be venial sins. God is the only one with knowledge of our minds and hearts. We all know that purgatory is where good souls are purified. They have died in God’s grace and friendship but but after death they undergo purification.

We cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves. The teaching of the Church also affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

So why do you say any sin (even non imputable deeds) may or may not be of grave matter, or a sin at all? It is like you are saying there is a third type of sin. There are mortal and venial sins, and a sin of grave matter, which may not be grave matter because the person was not culpable. Do you see the confusion in what you are saying? You clearly know the Catechism teaching on Purgatory and Hell. To say there may be no purgatory or hell for a sin is not part of the teaching in the Catechism of the Church, at least I could not find it.

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

**1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. **

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him.** But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves**: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

 

[PRmerger]

Not to worry PR, the more knowledgeable Catholics you speak of may like to help you if you ask them.

Yes. I always seek succor in those who know more than I do.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…

Josie I must say I admire the energy and perspicacious CCC research you are putting into this.

Just a few minor misunderstandings have tangled you a little…

So why do you say any sin (even non imputable deeds) may or may not be of grave matter, or a sin at all? It is like you are saying there is a third type of sin.

Can you quote me where I allegedly said this? I simply stated that misdeeds of grave matter are regularly enough actually only venial before God, and sometimes not even true sin at all. We called these “sins” transgressions or “material sin”. To be true sin they must be “formal sin” of which there are two types, venial and mortal as you state.

Aquinas states that the only real sin is mortal. We call other things “sin” only by analogy (ie a weak likeness that leads to real sin). This list of weaker offenses we commonly call"sin" in order of lessening malice are: venial sin, original sin, state-of-sin, transgressions, imperfections, concupiscence. We might quibble over the ordering.

We cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves.

Be careful not to confuse “sinning gravely” with “Grave Matter”. The former is ambiguous, though usually it means mortal sinning. The latter is a highly specialized technical term.
It simply refers to one component of a complete human act. The complete act may or may not be truly sinful. You would not be wrong to call grave matter any disordered action. And of course disordered actions by themselves are not enough to define sin in the fullest sense of the word. We need to know intention and circumstances and levels of coercion and levels of gravity etc before inferring the presence or mortal sin, venial sin, mere transgression or imperfection…

This is the CCC article that briefly makes my point:
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes. I always seek succor in those who know more than I do.

Funny, over the years I havent observed you to find one who might suckor you so.

 

[graciew]

No one can be sure which actions of sin are non imputable deeds of grave matter or that they may not even be venial sins. God is the only one with knowledge of our minds and hearts. We all know that purgatory is where good souls are purified. They have died in God’s grace and friendship but but after death they undergo purification.

We cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves. The teaching of the Church also affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

So why do you say any sin (even non imputable deeds) may or may not be of grave matter, or a sin at all? It is like you are saying there is a third type of sin. There are mortal and venial sins, and a sin of grave matter, which may not be grave matter because the person was not culpable. Do you see the confusion in what you are saying? You clearly know the Catechism teaching on Purgatory and Hell. To say there may be no purgatory or hell for a sin is not part of the teaching in the Catechism of the Church, at least I could not find it.

Why don t you ask your Confessor when you have a doubt?

 

[PRmerger]

Funny, over the years I havent observed you to find one who might suckor you so.

Well, that’s because you’re not one of the folks that I seek succor in. sorry

In fact, I rather have to correct most of the things you assert.

 

[PRmerger]

But whether the disordered deed we see is rightly called “mortally sinful” … that’s a whole different matter and at best can only be tentatively inferred.

Correction to the above: it’s not (at all) a “whole different matter”.

It’s linked together quite intimately.

“Disordered deeds” and “mortally sinful” are 2 sides of the same coin.

To wit: sleeping with* your married neighbor is a disordered deed.
Sleeping with your married neighbor is mortally sinful.

No Catholic ought to have a problem with both of those statements being absolutely true.

It’s just incorrect to say that those 2 statements are “a whole different matter”.

*I’m using a euphemism for “sexual intercourse”.

 

[JosieN]

Why don t you ask your Confessor when you have a doubt?

I don’t have doubts and I am not referring to me when I ask these questions. I am concerned for others who may be led into further sin by believing they are not sinning because they are confused about Church teachings. I think it will become more common for people to say to a habitual sinner, "we understand, lets be kind to him, his sins are nullified anyway because of psychological or social factors, " and the real problem which is his sinful habits will be forgotten. Not only will his body suffer, but the soul will too. You cannot continue to sin and have a healthy soul. I guess my worry is that we will begin to make excuses for sins and sinners, and their souls will be lost.

 

[JimG]

I don’t have doubts and I am not referring to me when I ask these questions. I am concerned for others who may be led into further sin by believing they are not sinning because they are confused about Church teachings. I think it will become more common for people to say to a habitual sinner, "we understand, lets be kind to him, his sins are nullified anyway because of psychological or social factors, " and the real problem which is his sinful habits will be forgotten. Not only will his body suffer, but the soul will too. You cannot continue to sin and have a healthy soul. I guess my worry is that we will begin to make excuses for sins and sinners, and their souls will be lost.

I think this is a reasonable concern. People need to know right from wrong. Once they clearly know right from wrong, they can consider culpability. One has to avoid a way of thinking which sees no sin anywhere because of the various mitigating factors relating to culpability. We do not, for example, excuse bullying on the basis of subjective personal factors. We ask that the bullying first stop; then we counsel the bully on his behavior and how to avoid that action in the future. But he must stop the bad behavior.

 

[JosieN]

I think this is a reasonable concern. People need to know right from wrong. Once they clearly know right from wrong, they can consider culpability. One has to avoid a way of thinking which sees no sin anywhere because of the various mitigating factors relating to culpability. We do not, for example, excuse bullying on the basis of subjective personal factors. We ask that the bullying first stop; then we counsel the bully on his behavior and how to avoid that action in the future. But he must stop the bad behavior.

I think that is a very good example.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…you’re not one of the folks that I seek succor in.

What part of “I haven’t observed you to find one” didn’t you get ?

He just didn’t understand it.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In fact, I rather have to correct most of the things you assert.

And yet strangely unable to back up your “corrections” with Magisterial support .

No he couldn’t.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

To wit: sleeping with* your married neighbor is a disordered deed.
Sleeping with your married neighbor is mortally sinful.

No Catholic ought to have a problem with both of those statements being absolutely true.

It’s just incorrect to say that those 2 statements are “a whole different matter”.

*I’m using a euphemism for “sexual intercourse”.

Sleeping* with your mother is a disordered deed.
Oedipus slept with his mother but it was NOT mortally sinful (though it ruined him).

No Catholic ought to have a problem with both of those statements being absolutely true.

*I’m using a euphemism for “sexual intercourse”.

So your point is … ?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

People need to know right from wrong…One has to avoid a way of thinking which sees no sin anywhere because of the various mitigating factors relating to culpability. We do not, for example, excuse bullying on the basis of subjective personal factors. We ask that the bullying first stop; then we counsel the bully on his behavior and how to avoid that action in the future. But he must stop the bad behavior.

Surely people who know right from wrong also need to know sin from wrong and grace from right. One has to avoid a way of thinking which sees offences against God everywhere simply because of outward bad behavior. We do not, for example, heal the bullying heart simply on the basis of stopping that outward bad behavior. Self-disciplined sinners are the worst are they not?

*“You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside are full of greed and self-indulgence. First clean the inside of the cup and dish, so that the outside may become clean as well.”

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every impurity. "*

And conversely dishes rusty on the outside may be spotless on the inside.
Is this not why the Lotus is amongst the most esteemed of flowers in all of Asia.
How does such a pure and beautiful thing grow so well in the filthiest of waters!
Yet it does. There’s a message there.

 

[JosieN]

Blue Horizon - **Self-disciplined sinners are the worst are they not?
**

self-discipline - the disciplining or controlling of one-self or one’s desires, actions, habits, etc. (New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition)

All sinners must be self-disciplined. If they are not, they will continue to repeat the sin. There is no grace in sinning.

 

[graciew]

I think this is a reasonable concern. People need to know right from wrong. Once they clearly know right from wrong, they can consider culpability. One has to avoid a way of thinking which sees no sin anywhere because of the various mitigating factors relating to culpability. We do not, for example, excuse bullying on the basis of subjective personal factors. We ask that the bullying first stop; then we counsel the bully on his behavior and how to avoid that action in the future. But he must stop the bad behavior.

Persons grow in families and communities. We cannot have everything under control…
I will be as honest as I can be: once you have walked the walk with a priest,a good community of good willed people and particularly in the Church,well,because it is where we belong, everything falls gently in its place.
It is diffficult to convey experiences,it is a matter of trust,but I wholeheartedly wish there was more silence of words,more trust and more personal dealing with priests and walking the walk.
There is a saying in Spanish" Do not clarify,that it makes it darker"
I have zero concern and all my trust in the Church,out of faith,out of reason.
Within these walks one may be comfronted with ourselves,and others by the hand of Jesús,and start a lifetime relationship which grows with its lights and shadows but foward.
Be calm,all will be well.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

self-discipline - the disciplining or controlling of one-self or one’s desires, actions, habits, etc. (New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition)

All sinners must be self-disciplined. If they are not, they will continue to repeat the sin. There is no grace in sinning.

Why would you put your phrase about “sinners” in the third person rather than the first person plural?

 

[graciew]

I don’t have doubts and I am not referring to me when I ask these questions. I am concerned for others who may be led into further sin by believing they are not sinning because they are confused about Church teachings. I think it will become more common for people to say to a habitual sinner, "we understand, lets be kind to him, his sins are nullified anyway because of psychological or social factors, " and the real problem which is his sinful habits will be forgotten. Not only will his body suffer, but the soul will too. You cannot continue to sin and have a healthy soul. I guess my worry is that we will begin to make excuses for sins and sinners, and their souls will be lost.

 Whoever is confused,has a door open to a priest

We know how to deal with our friends and our closer ones. The time to speak,the time to listen,the time to work, and so on. Yet what we say here…
In God’s s presence,we are in God’s s presence as we write. I often forget that too,and I am sorry for that. After all ,who knows who can be hurting behind the screen…
Go to your priests,ask a priest,that is what I would say .They know best when it comes to personal things.