Issues from an Agnostic

[UnworthyApostle]

A person being born homosexual does not go against the scripture;

“For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb…”(Matthew 19:12)

or as the New American Bible says,

“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so…”(Matt.19:12)

Jesus says that some people are not capable of marriage becuase they were born so. therefore; homosexuals born that way would fall into this category. Sex is only meant for marraige according to Christian theology, so a born homosexual would be expected to live a single/chaste life for the kingdom of God due to the fact that sex outside of marriage is a sin,a homosexual cannot marry.

Everyone has a calling, a vocation, a destiny in this life from God. It is just up to us to find out that calling and live it. I can not tell you how much I would have liked to retire to the mountains and live the asetic lifestyle of a hermit. The thought of being at One with God in nature just enthralls me, but my call is to married life. I found this out after much prayer and inquiry. I wanted to escape the world, but God pulled me back to it and “said” that I needed to be a witness in the secular world.

This is just another way of looking at the situation. Hope it helps!

 

[seeker57]

God made adam and eve. If he thought homosexuality was okay, he would have made adam and steve. If you cannot help yourself to thinking about being a rapist, and you sincerly try not to think about it, and you don’t act on it, then that’s okay. Same with homosexuality, and premarital hetrosexual sex, or masturbation.

So, are you saying God made a mistake when he made gay men and lesbian women?

Regarding the original post, I have had the same misgivings about the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian sects. I also have misgivings on much of what was mentioned in the above post.

If sex is for procreation only, then someone better tell those retirees who suddenly find themselves widowed and on the dating scene again. Since they can’t procreate, they should be celibate, even if they live another 30 years.

I can tell you from experience, many hetero retirees are not living celibate lives and would balk at the idea.

As for sex being unitive, I don’t see why it couldn’t be unitive in a gay or lesbian relationship as well.

Regarding the rules and regs imposed by many sects on getting into heaven, I don’t put much stock in them.

In my faith, we believe in doing good works for the sake of doing them. As Publisher said regarding the Friends, for us it is the journey, not the destination, that matters.

I guess, in my case, it is one of the benefits of being a universalist.

Seeker

 

[fbl9]

In my faith, we believe in doing good works for the sake of doing them. As Publisher said regarding the Friends, for us it is the journey, not the destination, that matters.

I guess, in my case, it is one of the benefits of being a universalist.

Seeker

The journey is part of the destination.One does not start on a journey with no place to end up at.

 

[Cleanthes]

There is a lot of confusion about the rationale behind the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and part of it is our fault. Few Catholics understand the natural law basis for the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. First, the Church never says that procreation is the only purpose for sex, rather, it is the primary purpose. The unitive function is secondary, but it exists only to subserve the procreative function. People would, rather obviously, not have any sexual activity at all if it weren’t for the sake of procreating. But we can also see that there would be no point for the unitive function without procreation. Why would there need to be a unitive bond between parents? Well, it is because children are dependent upon there parents for a very long period of time. They have to be raised within a stable family environment and this requires bond of unity between the parents in order to keep the family unit intact. The unitive function is therefore dependent upon and suborindate to the procreative function. The idea that the unitive function could still be “good” in the absence of children is to misunderstand its ultimate purpose. If there are no children to raise, then there is no need for a bond of unity.

Furthermore, even if people are born gay, it doesn’t follow that it is somehow natural for people to be gay. What is natural is not determined by some individual’s inborn dispositions. What natural for a human being is determined by what is natural for members of the human species. Compare: It is natural for human beings to have two arms and two legs. Just because some people are born with clubfoot, say, it does not follow that it is natural for people to have clubfeet. Nor does it follow we should celebrate their clubfootedness as an expression of God’s love.

Hope this helps to clarify why the Church teaches what it does.

 

[Matt_G83]

@Dorothy:
You’re still implying that the act of homosexuality is wrong. Why is it their cross or burden to bear… why aren’t they treated like everyone else? We all have crosses to bear. Alcoholism/drug addiction/etc. One has to try to overcome the obstacles, not use them as crutches. It obviously can never be procreative… so it becomes more difficult to equate to sex between man and a woman. What IS wrong with it? Is it wrong in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of the Church? See Sodom and Gomorrah…

So if it’s not marriage (not allowed within the Sacrament of Marriage) and if it’s not sex as the Church views sex (because you can never have children from it) then we can really comment on it at all? A sexual act is still a “sexual” act whether or not it is procreative.

@Matt:
I’m not trying to say that sex is there to ‘test drive’ others. Nor am I saying that sex for fun turns the other person into an object. I strongly disagree with those views of sex. While those may be issues that commonly arise in our society, what I’m trying to say is… you can have sex for fun and still see the other person, as, well, a person. Do we keep “redefining” things until they fit our own purpose?

So, what you’re talking about is “friends with benefits”?! Okay, a person has sex with “just friends”. It becomes a unitive act with several different friends. Does one use contraceptives? Is it lust or like or love or “something to do”? Do we make sex purely a recreational sport where it holds no meaning?
And while I KNOW that the Church disagrees with me here, I believe you can have meaningful sex out of wedlock. It is one the the most unitive, one of the most life-changing acts that you can ever perform in a relationship… and it doesn’t necessarily need to have any meaning beyond that. While I agree procreation is something reserved for a married couple, I think that the act of sex itself need not have such restrictions. Sex can build a relationship, (I may be sticking my neck out really far but, speaking from 25 years of “experience”, a relationship/marriage is probably extremely tough to sustain if built upon sex)sex can seal the bond between two people. Since sex can “seal” the bond, wait until the bond is made in marriage…Why do we deny homosexuals the same unitive right as the rest of us?

We often become like lawyers (no offense intended) and try to find ways to justify what we want to do. We look for the tiniest of loopholes to wriggle through. In this day and age, it is difficult to be the one to say “no, that is wrong”. It is easier to let something go because “it doesn’t hurt anyone” or it is a “private matter”.

 

[Noesis]

Essentially… how can we justify calling the act a sin if 1) God made it a naturally occuring, unable to be resisted part of the human psyche and 2)If there is no real reason beyond some references in the Old Testament within scripture for it being wrong.

Well, this depends on a lot of things, and I’m sure the simple answer lies in whether or not you accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. But since neither of us do, let’s look at your two points together in a different way.

1. The same can be said about mental illness – say, bi-polar disorder – but this does not imply that mental illness should be philosophically classified as being an ethic towards which all philosophers should ascend. Therefore, we must ignore this point, for it is invalid.
2. The wider point is not scripture, but the underlying society which created it. Homosexuality has traditionally been viewed as something which is not an inherent aspect of the order of civilization, but as something which exists on the fringe of it, in the same way as a roaring ocean storm does. It is therefore seen as something odd, and a concept which the civilized should not concern themselves with. In order to understand the religious application of this basic perspective, a person should view the particular way in which a religion was embedded into any given society; and if we are speaking of ancient societies, we usually speak of ones in which the concepts of law, justice, and rights were not as developed as they later became.

I think it most fair to say, then, that we are entitled to view precepts for ancient societies, and to interpret them through the lens of our own, and to abandon that which we can defend as being unnecessary and obsolete. But the Catholic Church cannot do this, because it must maintain that it has always been guided by God into eternal truth; and that the norms of one age of its teaching, are in fact the norms of heaven, and cannot change. This is the heart of why the Church views homosexuality as it does, and everything else is rationalization.

The question is then whether or not homosexuality is a wild force of nature, and whether or not it can be tamed in such a way as to provide benefit to the order of the human mind and to its society.

 

[Cristiano]

Well, I wasn’t sure where to throw this thread but, you know, I figure someone knowledgeable will stumble on it eventually.

So, I’m the type of guy who doesn’t believe things without some pretty solid proof behind them. I don’t make hard decisions lightly, but when they’re made, well, it’s tough to change my mind. This creates some problems with me and religion… but my individual belief in God isn’t up for question in this thread.

I am an Agnostic, but having been raised Catholic with Catholic values… I’m inclined to believe that in Catholocism lies the answers. However, I have some very noticeable issues with the Church’s teachings… things that keep me from accepting and truly being able to believe.

1. Homosexuality. Transgender. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual. The LGBT community…

Already addressed by a lot of other posters and I am not going to add to it.

1. The qualifications for getting into heaven. I’ve been told many times recently that what you need to get into heaven is Grace not works. There are numerous bible quotes to support this… I forget the exact ones. Something about “so no man may boast.” Anyways…

I encourage you to read the article on the Eastern Catholic view on morality (sin and hell) published on page 30 of the fall edition of the “Sophia” journal. It is just a two-pager but very interesting. It might also help you with your first question. melkite.org/Sophia/Final_Sophia_Fall_2010.pdf

---

tl;dr version:

1. Why does the Church have a problem with the LGBT community?
2. Do good people go to hell simply because they deny Christianity?

I tend to be a bit wordy and tend to slide into rants… but believe me! I’m here with an open mind! And I honestly would like to hear people’s perspectives on my issues… it’s why I’m here after all.

 

[Thyme]

The reason for homosexual activity being sinful is the same reason why adultery, masturbation, lust and contraception is sinful. These sins are selfish acts.

When a husband and wife are married, their souls are united permanently, which is why Christ forbade divorce. Adultery is not only selfish, but it would mean having sexual activity with someone who you aren’t spiritually united with.

Masturbation is sinful because it is a selfish act and sex has a sacred purpose.

Lust is sinful because it reduces someone into a sexual object.

Artificial contraception is sinful because it creates a barrier against sacred human life. It is a bit like blasphemy. Only God is allowed to decide when life is and is not created and artificial contraception means that the two aren’t fully giving themselves to each other- making the act selfish.

After understanding these, it is easy to understand why homosexual activity is sinful. It would have to be outside of marriage and is only for pleasing sexual desires. If a gay couple would like to express their love, there are many chaste ways of doing it.

 

[z0wb13]

from an earlier post: God made male and female for a reason.

from wikipedia: An organism’s sex is defined by the gametes it produces: males produce male gametes (spermatozoa, or sperm) while females produce female gametes (ova, or egg cells); individual organisms which produce both male and female gametes are termed hermaphroditic. Frequently, physical differences are associated with the different sexes of an organism; these sexual dimorphisms can reflect the different reproductive pressures the sexes experience.

that’s the reason for the sexes. if you want to know more about gender, which is a social construct, take a women’s lib class. or just do some looking around on the information superhighway.

i would like to see from an apologist here where, exactly, jesus complains about homosexuals. no OT jive;p please be specific, and we can argue about exactly what a fornicator is.

even if you can’t find jesus saying anything specific, i still recognize the catholic church’s right to discriminate against whatever kind of person they want, for whatever behaviors they deem unfit. i’m just glad we don’t live in a theocracy.

 

[Thyme]

that’s the reason for the sexes. if you want to know more about gender, which is a social construct, take a women’s lib class. or just do some looking around on the information superhighway.

i would like to see from an apologist here where, exactly, jesus complains about homosexuals. no OT jive;p please be specific, and we can argue about exactly what a fornicator is.

even if you can’t find jesus saying anything specific, i still recognize the catholic church’s right to discriminate against whatever kind of person they want, for whatever behaviors they deem unfit. i’m just glad we don’t live in a theocracy.

This is like saying that God didn’t create mankind because we evolved. Christians believe that God created us and evolution is the way He did it. God isn’t affected by time, since He created it. To Him, our evolution may have been instant.

The Church doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals because Christians must treat everyone equally. If a homosexual is Catholic, then they would believe that sexual activity is only for pro-creation as well. Don’t forget that not only homosexuals are affected by this. People who want to masturbate, use artificial contraception, have abortions, have same-sex marriages, have a second marriage etc are also “discriminated” against. It’s like saying that people who use condoms, or who masturbate are discriminated against by Catholics. Everyone sins. If Catholics discriminated, we would be discriminating against everyone!

My step brother is gay. He has a high-pitched voice and is very femenine. I like his uniqueness and feel more comfortable with him than other boys. His family is Catholic and so is he. Everyone is supportive of him, but we all believe that sex is for pro-creation. I would be surprised if a practising Christian ever discriminated against a homosexual.

 

[Thyme]

This is like saying that God didn’t create mankind because we evolved. Christians believe that God created us and evolution is the way He did it. God isn’t affected by time, since He created it. To Him, our evolution may have been instant.

The Church doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals because Christians must treat everyone equally. If a homosexual is Catholic, then they would believe that sexual activity is only for pro-creation as well. Don’t forget that not only homosexuals are affected by this. People who want to masturbate, use artificial contraception, have abortions, have same-sex marriages, have a second marriage etc are also “discriminated” against. It’s like saying that people who use condoms, or who masturbate are discriminated against by Catholics. Everyone sins. If Catholics discriminated, we would be discriminating against everyone!

My step brother is gay. He has a high-pitched voice and is very femenine. I like his uniqueness and feel more comfortable with him than other boys. His family is Catholic and so is he. Everyone is supportive of him, but we all believe that sex is for pro-creation. I would be surprised if a practising Christian ever discriminated against a homosexual.

i would like to see from an apologist here where, exactly, jesus complains about homosexuals. no OT jive;p please be specific, and we can argue about exactly what a fornicator i

If you want quotes from the New Testament then here you go:

Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;** for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,** 27and in the same way also** the men abandoned the natural function of the woman** and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived;** neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” **

Matt. 19:4-6 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

Throughout the entire Bible, children keep being portrayed as a natural blessing. They aren’t just a natural result of life, they are a gift from God with souls that come from His life. Large families are also portrayed as a blessing. In the eyes of a Church and Sacred Scripture, the word ‘sin’ describes anything which goes against God’s grace. Any activity which is ant-life is un-holy and a rejection of God’s love.

 

[z0wb13]

^^^^^^^^^

thank you!

 

[Thyme]

^^^^^^^^^

thank you!

You’re welcome!

 

[larkin31]

This thread has been about homosexuality almost entirely.

How about if I throw in another “issue” from another “agnostic” (myself)?

Must the miracles of both the OT and the NT be believed as literally having happened for one to be Christian? To some degree, what has pushed me away from faith (at least the Christian faith and from my primary understanding of God from youth) is this insistence. Leaving the resurrection aside, is belief in the other miracles (even the parting of the Red Sea) a MUST? Is it a deal-breaker?

–Larkin

 

[Thyme]

This thread has been about homosexuality almost entirely.

How about if I throw in another “issue” from another “agnostic” (myself)?

Must the miracles of both the OT and the NT be believed as literally having happened for one to be Christian? To some degree, what has pushed me away from faith (at least the Christian faith and from my primary understanding of God from youth) is this insistence. Leaving the resurrection aside, is belief in the other miracles (even the parting of the Red Sea) a MUST? Is it a deal-breaker?

–Larkin

No we’re not required to believe in every miracle. The same message is given and many of them, such as Revelations, or when Jonah would have been given to the prophet/Apostles through a prophesy/vision. A lot of it is symbolic. For example, the Apostles probably didn’t really catch 153 fish (who would count them?), but it is believed to be symbolic.

You aren’t required to believe in the parting of the Red Sea, but I did see an article where an atheist explained how it would have happened and it’s really interesting. All God would have to do was send a strong wind, or send the Israelites at the correct time and the waters would be parted (it’s to do with the way part of the river bends), so I believe it happened, but we are allowed to believe that it is symbolic. The message remains the same.

 

[Thyme]

I find it hard to accept that the afterlife run by a truly just and loving God would be an exclusive club available to only those that have been baptized, or only those who believe in Jesus, or only those who go to Mass all the time… all the little requirements in Christian religions the world over.

Catholics believe that God judges you based on what truth you have. Only God knows who will enter Heaven, but Catholics believe that a non-Christian won’t be judged for what they don’t know and that those who haven’t got a perfected relationship with God, but don’t die in a state of mortal sin (be it Christian or non-Christian) will be cleansed of any sin before entering Heaven.

I understand that according to the Church, God does not judge based on works. It is entirely possible for someone to do all sorts of good things for others but be a absolute horror of a person. But how can we justify the situation where someone truly is a good person would go to hell?

The Bible states that faith without works is useless. We must act out our faith. Catholics believe that the closer you are to the truth, the more responsible you are for your soul (you can’t just say you believe in Christ and expect to go to Heaven). The sins which the Bible says send you straight to hell are called ‘mortal sins’. For a sin to be mortal, the person must have free will, full knowledge of what they are doing and to commit a ‘mortal’ sin. If someone doesn’t believe in God and commits one of these sins, with full awareness that it is a bad deed, but are then sorrowful, they won’t be sent to hell.

If a Catholic commits a mortal sin, they must receive Absolution as soon as possible. One time to a Saint, Christ said we will be surprised at who we do and don’t see in Heaven. We can’t really say how many people don’t enter Heaven.

Imagine a person who does good because they feel it is the right thing to do, they give to charity, they help others, they never deliberately hurt others… in essence, they are a paragon of all that Jesus teaches us to be in the New Testamant. But, that person is an agnostic. They are an atheist. They are a Hindu, a Muslim, heck, they may even be a pagan.

If someone lives a very good life, then the only reason for them to go to hell would be rejection of His mercy when they finally meet Him.

Better yet, have them be somebody who has been shown Christianity, but they chose not to accept it due to a multitude of reasons from being skeptical, to believing their own religion is correct, to simply just not caring about religion playing any sort of role in their lives.

Only God knows what is going on in someone’s heart, but generally, Catholics believe that those who aren’t Christian, or know about Christianity but don’t accept it are considered ignorant of the truth. We are only guilty of sins committed out of ignorance if we eventually learn about them but aren’t repentant. Catholics also sometimes do penances on behalf of others.

Would a truly just, a truly loving God send that person to hell? Someone who has never been baptized, never been confirmed, never accepted Jesus… done all the no-nos the Church describes… and yet lives their lives about as Saintlike as your average human can get. Can you honestly tell me that that person would go to hell?

No-one can honestly tell you if that person will go to hell. It really depends on what is going on in their mind before and after death. Catholics believe in baptism of desire. This can apply to those who cannot access a Priest, or those who accept God after death. If someone hasn’t been baptised but accepts God when they die and accept His mercy, will probably be cleansed until they are pure enough to enter Heaven (Catholics call this cleansing state ‘Purgatory’). It is probably very rare for anyone no matter what their faith or lifestyle to go to Heaven immediately, which is why Catholics pray for those who are in Purgatory.

And yet… the person who was born Catholic, accepted it because it was what their family was, did all the requisite Baptism, Confirmation, and other Sacraments… but doesn’t actually follow up on their beliefs, doesn’t go to Church, doesn’t help those in need, has all the character flaws inflicted by the 7 Deadly Sins… the Church would tell me that that person would go to Heaven simply because they believe in Jesus and accept God?

No. If that Catholic knew that they are required to reveive Absolution for their mortal sins and are fully aware that their sins are considered mortal, then their soul is at risk. God only knows the true state of a soul, but if they are in a state of mortal sin at death, then their soul will be so impure that they will condemn themselves into hell.

Salvation by faith alone is a Protestant belief. The Bible actually states that faith without works is dead, but this message has been altered. I would suggest that you read a Catholic Bible, such as the Douay Rheims or NAB.

I’m sorry if I haven’t explained anything clearly. I have recently returned to my faith, so still have a lot more to learn.

 

[Thyme]

Here are some quotes of what God once said to St. Faustina, which may help you understanding of God’s nature:

“I am more generous towards sinners than toward the just. It was for their sake that I came down form Heaven; it was for their sake that My Blood was spilled. Let them not fear to approach Me; they are in most need of My mercy.”

“The loss of each soul plunges Me into mortal sadness. You always console Me when you pray for sinners. The prayer most pleasing to Me is the prayer for the conversion of sinners…”

"when a soul sees and realises the gravity of its sins, when the whole abyss of the misery into which it immersed itself is displayed before its eyes, let it not despair, but with trust let it throw itself into the arms of My mercy, as a child into the arms of its beloved mother. These souls have a right of priority to My compassionate Heart, they have first access to My mercy. Tell them that no soul that has called upon My mercy has been disappointed or brought to shame. I delight particularly in a soul which has placed its trust in My goodness. "

" …With My mercy, I pursue sinners along all their paths, and My Heart rejoices when they return to Me. I forget the bitterness with which they fed My Heart and rejoice at their return…Tell sinners that no one shall escape My Hand; if they run away from My Merciful Heart, they will fall into My just Hands. Tell sinners that I am always waiting for them, that I listen intently to the beating of their heart…when will it beat for Me? Write, that I am speaking to them through their remorse of conscience, through their failings and sufferings, through thunderstorms, through the voice of the Church. And if they bring all My graces to naught, I begin to be angry with them, leaving them alone and giving them what they want. "

 

[larkin31]

No we’re not required to believe in every miracle. The same message is given and many of them, such as Revelations, or when Jonah would have been given to the prophet/Apostles through a prophesy/vision. A lot of it is symbolic. For example, the Apostles probably didn’t really catch 153 fish (who would count them?), but it is believed to be symbolic.

You aren’t required to believe in the parting of the Red Sea, but I did see an article where an atheist explained how it would have happened and it’s really interesting. All God would have to do was send a strong wind, or send the Israelites at the correct time and the waters would be parted (it’s to do with the way part of the river bends), so I believe it happened, but we are allowed to believe that it is symbolic. The message remains the same.

Thanks, Thyme. I find your flexibility and openness on this question surprising and refreshing. And encouraging!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Here are some quotes of what God once said to St. Faustina, which may help you understanding of God’s nature:

“I am more generous towards sinners than toward the just. It was for their sake that I came down form Heaven; it was for their sake that My Blood was spilled. Let them not fear to approach Me; they are in most need of My mercy.”

“The loss of each soul plunges Me into mortal sadness. You always console Me when you pray for sinners. The prayer most pleasing to Me is the prayer for the conversion of sinners…”

"when a soul sees and realises the gravity of its sins, when the whole abyss of the misery into which it immersed itself is displayed before its eyes, let it not despair, but with trust let it throw itself into the arms of My mercy, as a child into the arms of its beloved mother. These souls have a right of priority to My compassionate Heart, they have first access to My mercy. Tell them that no soul that has called upon My mercy has been disappointed or brought to shame. I delight particularly in a soul which has placed its trust in My goodness. "

" …With My mercy, I pursue sinners along all their paths, and My Heart rejoices when they return to Me. I forget the bitterness with which they fed My Heart and rejoice at their return…Tell sinners that no one shall escape My Hand; if they run away from My Merciful Heart, they will fall into My just Hands. Tell sinners that I am always waiting for them, that I listen intently to the beating of their heart…when will it beat for Me? Write, that I am speaking to them through their remorse of conscience, through their failings and sufferings, through thunderstorms, through the voice of the Church. And if they bring all My graces to naught, I begin to be angry with them, leaving them alone and giving them what they want. "

The continuing tradition of the Church is incredible… it’s a shame Protestantism is so big, if not just because of the obfuscation thereby of the wealth of post-biblical revelation.

These words, which of course echo many in the New Testament, are of the eager to save, eager to help, patiently waiting God which the Church could do better to represent publically more readily, I think

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

i would like to see from an apologist here where, exactly, Jesus complains about homosexuals. no OT jive;p please be specific, and we can argue about exactly what a fornicator is.

Oy vey, jive talkin’ Old Testement style - now dat would be somethink.

even if you can’t find jesus saying anything specific, i still recognize the catholic church’s right to discriminate against whatever kind of person they want, for whatever behaviors they deem unfit. i’m just glad we don’t live in a theocracy.

The Catholic Church doesn’t discriminate against persons. There is a difference between a person and an action. But when talking about homosexuality there is a blur the person an the action, where even they themselves define themselves by the action they commit. Where if you say something about the morality of the action that is slight against them who define themselves by that action. If anything Catholic moral teaching is concern about morality of the action, and doesn’t judge the person, but the Church still has the right to say who’s fit or unfit to receive her sacraments.