Is there a labeled sin here?

[John_Gonzales]

Hi, The past year I have heard that there is a gay bishop who has chosen to marry. Now since he believes he is not sinning in the fact that he believes homosexuality marriage is alright, is he sinning by not submitting to catholic doctrine? Is there a labeled sin by not following the churches teachings on a certain matter when you believe that there is no sin at all? If so what type of sin is it?

 

[Corki]

I believe the bishop you are referring to is Episcopalian. The sins are too numerous to name.

 

[LilyM]

Hi, The past year I have heard that there is a gay bishop who has chosen to marry. Now since he believes he is not sinning in the fact that he believes homosexuality marriage is alright, is he sinning by not submitting to catholic doctrine? Is there a labeled sin by not following the churches teachings on a certain matter when you believe that there is no sin at all? If so what type of sin is it?

Assuming the bishop is Catholic, there are several.

Disobedience is one -a bishop is certainly bound to obey directions from the Vatican, for example, which surely would be given in such a case. And in any event are clear enough that homosexuality is wrong AND that Latin Rite bishops are not to marry, at least without dispensation.

Heresy (obstinate disagreement with clear and known Church teaching).

 

[TotallyConfused]

I believe the bishop you are referring to is Episcopalian. The sins are too numerous to name.

Why are they too numerous?

Because he is Episcopalian? (Can’ see how that is a sin)
Because he is Gay? (Not really a sin in itself, if you don’t act on it)

Now, I’m not sure what the Episcopalian’s teaches on this matter, but because he is not Catholic, I can’t see how there are too many sins to name in this scenario.

IF he was Catholic, there would be only around 3, as LilyM pointed out, disobedience, heresy and I’d possibly also add homosexual acts to the mix, since that is condemed by the Catholic church and it would be assumed that since he is marrying (entering into civil union with) a partner, the sexual act would take place.

 

[Seatuck]

There is also scandal and possibly other sins depending upon what else is going on in the situation.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Mortal sin requires that it involves grave matter. Clearly what this Episcopalian bishop has done involves grave matter.

Mortal sin also requires that it be done knowing it is sin and with full consent of the will.

If this man has so deceived himself as to not recognize that what he has done is wrong, does that mean that he has not committed mortal sin?

Marsha

 

[bilop]

If this man has so deceived himself as to not recognize that what he has done is wrong, does that mean that he has not committed mortal sin?

Marsha

No. To have full knowledge just means that you know the Church teaches something is wrong. This is as true for non-Catholics as for Catholics (i.e. you can’t make something non-sinful just by leaving the Church.) To disagree does not mitigate the sin.

God Bless

 

[kage_ar]

I’ve 20+ different copies, translations, versions of the Bible on my bookshelf. I just checked all of the, not one has a disclaimer that says “the contents apply ONLY to Catholics”.

 

[Corki]

Why are they too numerous?

Because he is Episcopalian? (Can’ see how that is a sin)
Because he is Gay? (Not really a sin in itself, if you don’t act on it)

Now, I’m not sure what the Episcopalian’s teaches on this matter, but because he is not Catholic, I can’t see how there are too many sins to name in this scenario.

IF he was Catholic, there would be only around 3, as LilyM pointed out, disobedience, heresy and I’d possibly also add homosexual acts to the mix, since that is condemed by the Catholic church and it would be assumed that since he is marrying (entering into civil union with) a partner, the sexual act would take place.

I mentioned the Episcopal factor since the OP mentioned that he has chosen to marry. Married clergy are not sinful in the Episcopal tradidtion.

Being openly gay, for a person in a leadership position IS sinful, even without the acts.

Even as an Episcopal Bishop the starting list of sins are: disobedience, immoral acts, causing scandal, leading his flock into sin, encouraging sin, leaving his wife to take up a life of sin, etc.

I say too numerous to mention because I am not familiar with all of his sermons and teachings so it is impossible for me to ennumerate on the errors.

 

[The_Otaku]

Sounds like heresy to me. We look up to these people to guide us like shepherds, even those who are not themselves catholic. Lets admit it, there are many protestant brothers and sisters who have Christ working through them very powerfully, and even so, if they were to fall into scandal like this it would be a disservice to us all and heresy would apply just as much to them as it would if they were/are catholic.