Determining if someone is in a state of Mortal Sin

[comrade1789]

I came in this thread to post this. Its a case of ‘mind your own business’ I think.

I don’t think you understand the nature of the inquiry, otherwise your comment would have taken a different route.

 

[jmcrae]

I am going to have to dive further into this, you can understand the trouble I am having reconciling the good points you are making with scriptures like 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 that state drunkards and sodomites and revelers and adulters etc shall not inherit the Kingdom, and then on the other hand some saying that we don’t know that they won’t inherit the kingdom.

We don’t even really know who “they” are, unless we are participating with “them” in their sins.

If you are doing these things, take heed - make an Examination of Conscience, and go to Confession.

If someone over whom you have spiritual authority (your child, your religion class student) is, or appears to be, participating in such activities, you need to remind them and instruct them.

Apart from that, it’s none of your business.

I am not trying to get to the bottom of this so i can say to somoeone “Ahha! You are going to hell!”

Then, for what purpose do you need to know the state of someone else’s soul?

I understand that I am not the one who can say with authority who goes and who doesn’t (praise God!) but I am worried about open doors that lead to a slippery-slope that eventually end with us sanctioning sodomy and other mortal sins that desecrate human dignity.

Who is “us”?

 

[promethius]

but I am worried about open doors that lead to a slippery-slope that eventually end with us sanctioning sodomy and other mortal sins that desecrate human dignity.

not going to happen. It is enough to say that doing these things is a violation of grave matter without having to try to determine whether or not a particular action was a mortal sin based on particulars we can’t know.

 

[Tannhauser]

1 Corinthians 2: 27-32

‘For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.’

‘But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.’

I think the issue of Mortal Sin is really summarised well here. Of course we cannot ever know, objectively, from God’s perspective, if we are in Mortal Sin… but that’s missing the point. God has given us His precepts, in abundance: the Church’s moral teachings are clear; Sacred Scripture is clear; the Encyclicals and everything else. God calls us to discern our actions, and situations, and to thus judge ourselves. The Sacrament of Reconciliation isn’t a sort of mechanical ‘one in; one out’, it’s about coming before the Priest, In persona Christi and saying: Father, I have sinned… forgive me. The Sacrament is there to reconcile us to God, and we should discern when and where that is appropriate.

For those of us that do not judge ourselves, I think Paul makes it clear that we eateth and drinketh judgement [unto ourselves].

In Christ.

 

[comrade1789]

We don’t even really know who “they” are, unless we are participating with “them” in their sins.

If you are doing these things, take heed - make an Examination of Conscience, and go to Confession.

If someone over whom you have spiritual authority (your child, your religion class student) is, or appears to be, participating in such activities, you need to remind them and instruct them.

Apart from that, it’s none of your business.

Then, for what purpose do you need to know the state of someone else’s soul?

Who is “us”?

Its not about the state of someone elses soul so much as wondering where people are coming from who claim that a person can live a “gay” lifestyle and not be in mortal sin. I still can’t see where you are coming from, I am trying to, but it just doesn’t seem to fit with the scripture and the authority I mentioned earlier. As far as “us” I mean anyone.

 

[Tannhauser]

Its not about the state of someone elses soul so much as wondering where people are coming from who claim that a person can live a “gay” lifestyle and not be in mortal sin. I still can’t see where you are coming from, I am trying to, but it just doesn’t seem to fit with the scripture and the authority I mentioned earlier. As far as “us” I mean anyone.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but I think a little clarification is necessary when you say ‘gay lifestyle’. Any man or woman that identifies as gay is called, by the Catholic Church, to *‘acknowledge and accept his sexual identity’ *CCC 2333 - indeed as we all are.

You appear to be assuming that ‘living a gay lifestyle’ is tantamount to ‘engaging in gay sexual activities’ etcetera, which is plainly not true. Many gay people will have gay friends, go to gay places (bars etcetera), and will remainly wholly faithful to chastity.

Hope that has been productive.

 

[jmcrae]

Its not about the state of someone elses soul so much as wondering where people are coming from who claim that a person can live a “gay” lifestyle and not be in mortal sin.

What we don’t know, unless we are actually doing it with him, is who this person is, who is living a “gay” lifestyle. Some people are all talk; we have no idea what they actually do, in the privacy of their own homes; other people don’t say anything at all, but do all kinds of things behind closed doors. So, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether a specific individual is committing sins, or not.

And even if we did, what do you propose to do? It would be the sin of gossip to tell your child, “Don’t be like that guy,” and it would be the sin of detraction to announce his sins in public.

I still can’t see where you are coming from, I am trying to, but it just doesn’t seem to fit with the scripture and the authority I mentioned earlier.

The Scriptures are speaking in general terms, addressed to a large audience. St. Paul is not naming names, or accusing specific individuals. He is teaching general principles. If you do this, you are sinning. But at the same time, he also warns against busybodies, and tells people who are going around telling their neighbors sins, to go out and get a job, and do some kind of useful work.

 

[comrade1789]

What we don’t know, unless we are actually doing it with him, is who this person is, who is living a “gay” lifestyle. Some people are all talk; we have no idea what they actually do, in the privacy of their own homes; other people don’t say anything at all, but do all kinds of things behind closed doors. So, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether a specific individual is committing sins, or not.

And even if we did, what do you propose to do? It would be the sin of gossip to tell your child, “Don’t be like that guy,” and it would be the sin of detraction to announce his sins in public.

The Scriptures are speaking in general terms, addressed to a large audience. St. Paul is not naming names, or accusing specific individuals. He is teaching general principles. If you do this, you are sinning. But at the same time, he also warns against busybodies, and tells people who are going around telling their neighbors sins, to go out and get a job, and do some kind of useful work.

I am not referring to anyone specific. All sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins. And yet it would appear that some here are trying to say that it is possible to be engaging in mortal sins without themselves somehow being in a state of mortal sin? It doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[comrade1789]

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but I think a little clarification is necessary when you say ‘gay lifestyle’. Any man or woman that identifies as gay is called, by the Catholic Church, to *‘acknowledge and accept his sexual identity’ *CCC 2333 - indeed as we all are.

You appear to be assuming that ‘living a gay lifestyle’ is tantamount to ‘engaging in gay sexual activities’ etcetera, which is plainly not true. Many gay people will have gay friends, go to gay places (bars etcetera), and will remainly wholly faithful to chastity.

Hope that has been productive.

To identitify with gay culture is to embrace it. There is more to chastity than not having sex. This from COURAGE website couragerc.net/FAQs.html:
Q. Why doesn’t Courage use the terms “gay” and “lesbian”?

A. Courage discourages persons with same-sex attractions from labeling themselves “gay” and “lesbian” for the following reasons:

1. The secular world usually uses those terms to refer to someone who is either actively homosexual or intends to be. When a person decides to “come out” and say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian”, the person usually means “this is who I am - I was born this way and I intend to live this way. I have a right to find a same-sex partner with whom to have a romantic sexual relationship.” To “come out” as being “gay” or “lesbian” doesn’t usually mean “I have homosexual attractions and I have a deep commitment to living a chaste life”.
2. By labeling someone, we discourage those who may wish to try and move beyond homosexual attractions. Some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid. If we labeled them “gay” and “lesbian”, they might think there’s no possibility of moving beyond these attractions.
3. There is more to a person than one’s sexual attractions. Even if one experienced same-sex attractions for most of one’s life, he or she is first and foremost a child of God created in His image. To refer to that person as “gay” or “lesbian” is a reductionist way of speaking about someone. We are even trying now to avoid using the term homosexual as a noun, or as an adjective directly describing the person (i.e. homosexual person). Although it takes more words, we prefer to speak of “persons with same-sex attractions”. Fr. Harvey has said that, if he could, he would rename his first book “The Homosexual Person” to something else like “The Person With Homosexual Attractions”.

There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered.

 

[Tannhauser]

Hogwash. To identitify with gay culture is to embrace it. There is more to chastity than not having sex.

I appreciate your comments; I quite disagree. To imply that all of gay culture is always and at all times in contradiction with what the Church teaches is nonsense. To also imply that a gay person who frequents his or her local gay bar, is somehow in danger of embracing [and accepting] gay culture and occasioning mortal sin, is scandalous and verging on the homophobic.

You’re using very broad terms and seemingly reducing them to simple concepts: e.g. your idea of gay culture seems to be a particularly pernicious one.

 

[comrade1789]

I appreciate your comments; I quite disagree. To imply that all of gay culture is always and at all times in contradiction with what the Church teaches is nonsense. To also imply that a gay person who frequents his or her local gay bar, is somehow in danger of embracing [and accepting] gay culture and occasioning mortal sin, is scandalous and verging on the homophobic.

You’re using very broad terms and seemingly reducing them to simple concepts: e.g. your idea of gay culture seems to be a particularly pernicious one.

I think you are being rather naive. To patronize a place that is dedicated to promoting the homosexual lifestyle is to give assent, and that could scandalize anyone trying to grow in holiness while combating a SSA themselves.

 

[promethius]

I am not referring to anyone specific. All sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins. And yet it would appear that some here are trying to say that it is possible to be engaging in mortal sins without themselves somehow being in a state of mortal sin? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Ahem. Correct on the green portion. Incorrect on the red portion. There is no such thing as objective mortal sin, because culpability required for mortal sin is subjective in and of itself. These acts are intrinsically evil and they are objectively grave matter, but you CANNOT judge if they result in a mortal sin or not.

 

[jmcrae]

I am not referring to anyone specific. All sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins. And yet it would appear that some here are trying to say that it is possible to be engaging in mortal sins without themselves somehow being in a state of mortal sin? It doesn’t make sense to me.

No, no, no - in the case that they are in fact doing that, they would (assuming full knowledge and free consent) be in a state of mortal sin.

But we are not allowed to point and accuse, because first of all, we can’t know (barring actually doing it with them) whether they in fact committed any sin, or not - and if we do know. we aren’t allowed to detract them in public, or gossip about them amongst ourselves.

Of course we can know that homosexual activity is sinful. But what we can’t do, is reveal to others who has done it, or who we think might have done it.

 

[jmcrae]

Ahem. Correct on the green portion. Incorrect on the red portion. There is no such thing as objective mortal sin, because culpability required for mortal sin is subjective in and of itself. These acts are intrinsically evil and they are objectively grave matter, but you CANNOT judge if they result in a mortal sin or not.

Good catch.

 

[Tannhauser]

I think you are being rather naive. To patronize a place that is dedicated to promoting the homosexual lifestyle is to give assent, and that could scandalize anyone trying to grow in holiness while combating a SSA themselves.

I would actually suggest that you’re perhaps being naive. You assume that a gay pub or bar is also dedicated to promoting the homosexual lifestyle. One reason for the existence of gay pubs and bars is to offer a safe space for gay men and women to go, without the fear of persecution.

Also, gay men and women who are also Catholic do not need to combat SSA: same sex attraction in itself is relatively neutral, and suggests only one’s physical, emotional attractions etcetera. The cultivation of a chaste life, emulating Christ, does not involve treating a same sex attraction as some sort of disease… A heterosexual man, not married, does not treat his sexual attraction to women as a sort of disease. Sexuality in itself, and the appreciation of beauty, from an emotional, and even sexual perspective, whether gay or straight, does not necessarily contradict chastity.

 

[Tannhauser]

Edit: Apologies. I acknowledge that only the last quote I provide here are your own words and thoughts. The first Three quotations are clearly the words and thoughts of COURAGE website, as you state.

The secular world usually uses those terms to refer to someone who is either actively homosexual or intends to be. When a person decides to “come out” and say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian”, the person usually means “this is who I am - I was born this way and I intend to live this way. I have a right to find a same-sex partner with whom to have a romantic sexual relationship.” To “come out” as being “gay” or “lesbian” doesn’t usually mean “I have homosexual attractions and I have a deep commitment to living a chaste life”.

This is very problematic. We are called, as I have shown stated in the Catholic Catechism, to acknowledge and accept our sexual identities: ‘Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.’ CCC 2333. To ‘Come Out’ as gay or lesbian is to acknowledge, before one self and others, one’s sexual identity; one’s sexual attractions; and one’s emotional needs. To identify as gay or lesbian, even if also a Catholic, is a perfectly healthy and I would say advisable thing. It does not - does not - automatically mean: I intend to embrace, support, and actively engage in gay or lesbian sexual activities. This is to reduce gay sexual identity to sheer mechanical actions.

1. By labeling someone, we discourage those who may wish to try and move beyond homosexual attractions. Some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid. If we labeled them “gay” and “lesbian”, they might think there’s no possibility of moving beyond these attractions.

Labelling is healthy. Christian. Catholic. Straight. Gay. It is about acknowledgement and acceptance. The gay man that comes out and accepts his sexual identity is saying: these are my emotional, sexual needs etcetera. To suggest that gay men and women need to move beyond homosexual attractions in order to be faithful to the Church is plainly wrong and verging on the homophobic: it says that the very emotional, physical, and sexual attraction in itself is always wrong, and always serves to hinder one’s faith. This is wrong. Sex outside of marriage per se; the privitisation of sex for one’s own benefit: this is sinful. The only difference with homosexual sex is that it is never capable of fulfilling God’s prescription for sex as unifying and procreative.

1. There is more to a person than one’s sexual attractions. Even if one experienced same-sex attractions for most of one’s life, he or she is first and foremost a child of God created in His image. To refer to that person as “gay” or “lesbian” is a reductionist way of speaking about someone. We are even trying now to avoid using the term homosexual as a noun, or as an adjective directly describing the person (i.e. homosexual person). Although it takes more words, we prefer to speak of “persons with same-sex attractions”. Fr. Harvey has said that, if he could, he would rename his first book “The Homosexual Person” to something else like “The Person With Homosexual Attractions”.

All of this verges on the homophobic - presumably unintentionally so. It is simply a stealth way to destroy the very fact and identity of gay men and women. It is reductionist to reduce gay men and women to their mechanical sexual desires. To identify as ‘Gay’ is to say so much more than ‘I happen to find the same sex sexually attractive’. It is a positive affirmation of one’s sexual, emotional, and physical identity/ needs. It provides solidarity and community for many, and acknowledges the complementarity of difference: it actively demonstrates that there are men and women with different emotional and sexual needs as straight/ heterosexual men and women.

There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered.

Well of course. To identify as gay does not in any way suggest of one’s sexual actions before God. It does not at all limit self-growth. Every gay Catholic will realise - we pray - that they are irrevocably and fundamentally made in His image. That gay man or woman also has a sexual identity, and that identity does not need to be ‘moved beyond’, it needs the Lord’s grace in chastity, as everyone outside of marriage requires.

 

[comrade1789]

No, no, no - in the case that they are in fact doing that, they would (assuming full knowledge and free consent) be in a state of mortal sin.

But we are not allowed to point and accuse, because first of all, we can’t know (barring actually doing it with them) whether they in fact committed any sin, or not - and if we do know. we aren’t allowed to detract them in public, or gossip about them amongst ourselves.

Of course we can know that homosexual activity is sinful. But what we can’t do, is reveal to others who has done it, or who we think might have done it.

Right, I am not advocating calling anyone out, or anything malicious or just plain stupid either. This is more about the ability to acknowledge interiorly that what we have observed exteriorly or gained knowledge of could actually be a mortal sin. I have no real world examples I am referencing, this is all hypothetical. I don’t understand your insistance on the observers need to personally be involved in the mortal sin as a prerequisite for being able to acknowledge said act to be a mortal sin. I do appreciate your being patient with me, I really do want to understand, because what one of the Vatican’s greatest catechists taught (as refrenced earlier) has me questioning what I am being told and what I am stuck on just doesn’t seem to grasp what you are trying to get through to me. Perhaps this whole Thread should have had a different title because the one I chose has people thinking that I am trying to judge a person, when what I am trying to get at is how can we even state mortal sin even exists if we can’t even identify examples of a person who is in mortal sin.

 

[comrade1789]

I would actually suggest that you’re perhaps being naive. You assume that a gay pub or bar is also dedicated to promoting the homosexual lifestyle. One reason for the existence of gay pubs and bars is to offer a safe space for gay men and women to go, without the fear of persecution.

Also, gay men and women who are also Catholic do not need to combat SSA: same sex attraction in itself is relatively neutral, and suggests only one’s physical, emotional attractions etcetera. The cultivation of a chaste life, emulating Christ, does not involve treating a same sex attraction as some sort of disease… A heterosexual man, not married, does not treat his sexual attraction to women as a sort of disease. Sexuality in itself, and the appreciation of beauty, from an emotional, and even sexual perspective, whether gay or straight, does not necessarily contradict chastity.

SSA is not the same, it is intrinsically disordered. Gay culture promotes identification with a disordered desire

 

[comrade1789]

Tannhauser, thank you for your replies. However, your views on this are very different than anything I have seen as official Church teaching. You quoted CCC 2333, but only in part. You wrote “We are called, as I have shown stated in the Catholic Catechism, to acknowledge and accept our sexual identities: ‘Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.’ CCC 2333”

Then you go on to state that: “To ‘Come Out’ as gay or lesbian is to acknowledge, before one self and others, one’s sexual identity; one’s sexual attractions; and one’s emotional needs. To identify as gay or lesbian, even if also a Catholic, is a perfectly healthy and I would say advisable thing. It does not - does not - automatically mean: I intend to embrace, support, and actively engage in gay or lesbian sexual activities. This is to reduce gay sexual identity to sheer mechanical actions.”

The rest of the text of 2333: Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the wy in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out."

Why would you only quote the first part and leave out all the rest wich properly contextualizes the statement? This has nothing to do with trying to claim that SSA is something to identify oneself as, this is about sexuality, which can only involve the different and complimentary sexes. Strictly speaking, there really is no such thing as a homosexual or a homosexual act, we are just using the terminology that is being peddled by unrepentant sodomites. Sexual intercourse is only sexual as it involves the different and complimentary sexes, the organ of sexual reproduction. Outside of that it is just masturbation using someone elses body or whatever.

Again, in CCC2360 (I quote in part) “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.” When discussing SSA, we are not in fact talking about someone’s sexual identity or orientation, there is no such thing because it is not sexuality if it is not ordered to the complimentary and different sex. It is a disordered attraction.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t understand your insistance on the observers need to personally be involved in the mortal sin as a prerequisite for being able to acknowledge said act to be a mortal sin.

What I mean is, unless you were actually with him and saw him do it, you don’t know whether he did anything at all.

The act is a mortal sin, when done with full knowledge and free consent, because it is grave matter. (ie: a mentally retarded person can commit a grave act, but cannot commit a mortal sin, due to his lack of ability to have knowledge; nor can any person ever commit a mortal sin at gunpoint, or by accident, even though they might commit a grave act while under duress, or by accident).

Perhaps this whole Thread should have had a different title because the one I chose has people thinking that I am trying to judge a person, when what I am trying to get at is how can we even state mortal sin even exists if we can’t even identify examples of a person who is in mortal sin.

You can certainly know that an act is grave matter, and that grave matter together with full knowledge and free consent is a mortal sin, without ever needing to look at any examples of people who are doing it.