Mormon Religion

[Stephen168]

Stephen, in good faith, Diana does try to understand. She may not always grasp it, but she keeping coming back and trying. And I do see her trying to put her own personal bias aside in order to understand better.

Trust me, it’s not easy for for Mormons to understand Catholicism and vice versa…They are very different faith creatures in many ways.

I give Diana great credit to keep trying.
It’s fair to say, in my view anyway, she often tries harder to understand Catholicism than many Catholics try to understand Mormonism.

It cuts both ways.

I see someone who assumes she knows more about Catholicism than she does, and will not accept anything a Catholic tries to explain to her. Some of her assumptions about what Catholics believe just make my head explode. She would rather try and prove your answer wrong (about anything). When she asks a question, I have never been given any indication, ever, that she wants to know the answer. After 30 pages of conversation, she can not accept this one simple idea; even though in her ranting, she has almost expained it to herself. It is amazing for me to watch. What you see as trying, I see as being argumentative. I’ve never been Mormon, so I’m sure there is something I’m missing.

My trouble with understand Mormonism is they don’t seem to want to explain it to me. This is an extreme example but I was once on a thread with three Mormons actively participating, and I asked: What is the Book of Mormon about? None of them would give any kind of answer. I have learned more of what I know about Mormonism from ex-Mormons because they will explain things. It also seems that Mormonism is explained more consistently by ex-Mormons.

 

[dianaiad]

The words you choose frequently suggest that you do not understand it at all, and it is far from irrelevant.

Why is it relevent, when latae sententiae only applies to those who are actually guilty of committing the sin?

Where do you come up with this stuff? No steps are being taken to “ensure it won’t be.”

Of course there are. Nobody teaches it. Excuses are being made right here for why it is not BEING taught. People claim that it is too complex, to difficult…nobody knows…nobody can understand…

But teaching this aspect, this one thing that applies so directly to the laity (after all, priests and nuns, all working under vows of chastity, don’t really have to deal with this issue absent certain very unusual circumstances…and CERTAINLY not to the level that lay Catholics do. Therefore if it is important enough to be IN the law, it is surely important enough to inform those who are affected by it that it IS in the law.

So tell me, Aspirant…did YOU know about this? When did you know? How many of your friends and relatives know about it? I can tell you that a good percentage of the posters HERE were blindsided by it.

And who has said they don’t want anyone to know about it? Please, share with us.

Why isn’t it taught? What is the only possible reason for it not to BE taught–even emphasized-- given that knowing about it could only help stop abortions among Catholics?

Can you think of ANY reason why Catholics are not specifically told this, except to spare them the consequences in a very real ‘what you don’t know can’t hurt you,’ effort?

If you’ve read anything I’ve written, you know that’s not true.

It’s not irrelevant to your prior claims. You claimed: “I am, however, a speaker and reader of English…and I also have a rudimentary knowledge of Latin… The words describing the results of getting an abortion are not cloaked in obscurity.” But you have demonstrated, through your ignorance of the meaning of excommunication, that your ability to read English and a little Latin were not sufficient to understand “the results of getting an abortion.”

It’s not, nor has anyone said it is.

(Standard disclaimer…) When I say ‘getting an abortion’ in relation to the consequence of excommunication, I UNDERSTAND, and have ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD, that it does not apply to those who, even if they actually had a pregnancy terminated by abortion, may not actually be guilty of the sin. It only applies to those whose guilt has been determined; who are actually GUILTY OF THE SIN.

Ok. It does not MATTER what excommunication actually MEANS, or DOES. It matters only that excommunication is the most severe penalty/remedy that the Catholic church can impose. Therefore, the results of actually having committed the sin (I’m going to have to put a copy/paste document so that I can import all these disclaimers…) is to have the most severe punishment/remedy that the church can impose automatically happen to you.

Unless, of course, you don’t know about it, and then not.

Seems to me that the church should be making a concerted effort to make certain that everybody DOES know about it. Emphasize it. Excommunication is not a throwaway 'oh, well, I can go to confession and it will be OK" sort of thing. (not that I am dismissing the very real contrition/repentence that doing that RIGHT involves!)

It’s excommunication…and if the church didn’t MEAN for it to be serious and taken seriously, why did it bother to put abortion on that list?

 

[dianaiad]

Stephen, in good faith, Diana does try to understand. She may not always grasp it, but she keeping coming back and trying. And I do see her trying to put her own personal bias aside in order to understand better.

Thank you, Marie. I will admit that I do this in a more adversarial way than even I am comfortable with at times, but I am trying.

Very trying.

 

[Answersplease]

Thank you, Marie. I will admit that I do this in a more adversarial way than even I am comfortable with at times, but I am trying.

Very trying.

God bless you again Dianaiad.

Lets get to the root of the confusion on this matter.

Please be kind enough to re-state for me all your questions about excommunication.

I will try to answer them, since I was the person who informed you about “latae sententiae” excommunication so many months ago, when we were on another thread.
I was at the time trying to explain why the Book of Mormon was racist, but lets talk about excommunication for now.

Again, God bless you Dianaiad.

 

[RebeccaJ]

…and you ARE going to have to explain to me exactly how 'Most Catholics do not think this way" when you specifically have been writing that they actualy do NOT see abortion as being more serious than murder–or rather, that they do not consider that having one results in more serious consequences than commiting other mortal sins.

All mortal sins have the same consequences. All people who have committed a mortal sin should refrain from receiving communion. All people who go to confession and receive absolution are forgiven of their sin(s). Forever. God forgets.

Maybe you missed the post a ways back in this thread where someone pointed out that a person who has had an abortion, goes to confession, and if the priest has been given authority by his bishop to give absolution for abortion…it’s done. So the excommunication lasts as long as it takes for the person to get prodded by their conscience and the Holy Spirit, to get to confession.

I think it is not hard to understand that a person who has shown up in a confessional, has spent some time beating themselves up over their sin, are usually contrite, ie, repentant and have spent some time in prayer, and are guided by the Holy Spirit to seek Reconciliation. Priests recognize this fact.

However, if Catholics honestly think that abortion is different/worst than murder, then why are so many of you GETTING them?

NOW you’re getting warmer. Hurray! I think you are starting to understand the scope of the rebellion.

I can…and I’m getting some very contradictory arguments. Abortion is/is not worse than murder. Catholics do/do not understand that the consequences are worse for abortion than they are for murder. It is/is not important that abortion is seen by the church to be in a different class of sin than murder or rape, because the church applies the most serious consequences to abortion, where it does not to other mortal sins.

I think because you have to understand first, moral law, all mortal sins have the same consequence.

Second, not all mortal sins are a rebellion against the Church. Abortion is unique, in the sense that the Majesterium in communion with the Pope, and all the Church (including the laity) have said numerous times abortion is a mortal sin. Do not have one, for any reason.

It is so well-known a teaching that if/when a Catholic chooses to have an abortion, they are essentially saying, “I know better than the Majesterium!” Or, as a friend of mine says, “they’ve made themselves Pope.” This is rebellion. The mortal sin of abortion is still as grave as murder, rape, etc.The consequences to one’s soul is just as grave as one to the other.

The penalty is for rebellion, not for the sin itself.

Rebecca, how can I ‘grasp’ a wind that is blowing at me from several different directions?

Try to see it as the wind blowing one direction.

Why is ABORTION considered ‘rebellion against the church’ in a way that murder is not?

It is by virtue of the numerous, numerous teachings, encyclicals, catechisms, addresses, etc given over several hundred years, and over the last 60 or so decades, like an unceasing, never ending, recording. Yet. Catholics still have abortions. Catholic politicians still want to be the Pope and publicly teach that the Church is not against abortion. The level of rebellion in this matter is unique to this time, and perhaps you will recall, we understand the Majesterium is led by the Holy Spirit, and so it is, God is helping the Church through this.

The penalties of Canonical Law are not doctrine. They do and can change.

Every other act on that list requires that the sinner actually be THINKING about the church when it is committed; they are ACTIVE ACTS OF REBELLION against church law and authority. In order to commit them, one must either BE a Catholic (most likely a Catholic in official religious life) and be aiming specifically AT Catholicism.

think to this Brazillian case. The mother was instructed, personally, by her bishop to not have the abortion done. Obviously, she was thinking about the Church or she never would have asked.

Abortion, however? Since non-Catholics who are not one whit concerned about Catholicism at the time can do this, I do not see why it is on the list. However, since it is on the list, I SURE don’t see why the church doesn’t think it’s important to TELL you guys about it.

It is in the Catechism. The Church certainly tells people abortion is a mortal sin. If you are Catholic, this alone should be a large enough concern. Obviously, our Bishops have noticed many Catholics do not accept the Majesterium’s teaching that abortion is a mortal sin.

I have not ‘reduced [your] faith to a list of rules,’ Rebecca. I simply saw a list of actions that result in latae sententiae excommunication, and I have told you about it. I am having a very hard time understanding your objections to that. Are you unhappy that you now KNOW about this, where you did not know it before?

Why?

I knew abortion was/is a mortal sin long before I was baptized. For most of my life I had the view that I would never have an abortion, but I would not take a stand on another woman having one. The DOCTRINE I had to concern myself with in my conversion process is that this relativistic view is NOT CATHOLIC. So this is what I sought to understand, and over time, lots of prayer and patience, came to understand the reasoning behind it, and now, today, I agree with it. (Agreed before I was baptized.)

I never looked for the penalty because frankly, my concern was the DOCTRINE. Having accepted the doctrine, the penalty is not something that effects my acceptance of the doctrine. I wouldn’t have an abortion, or recommend an abortion, or vote pro-choice, for the fact I know it to be taking a life. One that has value, the same as yours or mine.

 

[Answersplease]

Thank you, Marie. I will admit that I do this in a more adversarial way than even I am comfortable with at times, but I am trying.

Very trying.

God bless you again Dianaiad.

Lets get to the root of the confusion on this matter.

Please be kind enough to re-state for me all your questions about excommunication.

I will try to answer them.

Again, God bless you Dianaiad.

 

[Stephen168]

I would say that is one very common thing that Mormons have in common with Catholics. The idea of “holy” “sacred” “reverence” and deep desire to communion with the Lord.

It’s just gone about differently.
Catholics=Eucharist
Mormons=Temples

This is not the first time an ex-Mormon Catholic has explained how sacred the Eucharist is to Catholics by using this analogy. The previous time she rejected it but now she seems to accept it. My suspicion is that it has more to do with the topic being discussed than accepting the analogy as true. This inconsistency is why I see her as argumentative and not trying.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is not the first time an ex-Mormon Catholic has explained how sacred the Eucharist is to Catholics by using this analogy. The previous time she rejected it but now she seems to accept it. My suspicion is that it has more to do with the topic being discussed than accepting the analogy as true. This inconsistency is why I see her as argumentative and not trying.

I think it is good when understanding is achieved.

 

[aspirant]

You did, in effect

No, I didn’t.

the whole point of ‘relative importance’ is the idea that there is a hierarchy of importance being considered

Yes. It does not make things of lesser importance unimportant.

Then why aren’t they told?

Many people are. But it really should not be difficult to understand that other things have higher priority, that people are receiving different kinds of education at many different levels, etc.

Stuff it in a pause during catechism class when you talk about doctrine and morality as it applies to abortion. You know, …“getting an abortion gets you excommunicated.” There you go. Easy.

If you think presenting this information in this manner would actually be helpful, you can’t have been a very good educator.

considering that the only way one can AVOID incurring that consequence (other than not getting the abortion in the first place) is by not knowing about the consequence

But it’s not, as has already been explained repeatedly.

I have mentioned many times that I am aware that any sin, in order to be a sin, must be deliberate, and committed by someone who is well aware of the nature of the act and its consequences.

If you understand it, why do your words not reflect it?

If understanding doctrine and moral law is more important, then it seems rather clear that someone would KNOW then that getting an abortion was against Catholic doctrine and moral law

.
And I think most Catholics are aware of this.
Not according to what most of you have been telling me lately, right here.

Riiiiiiight:

The moral teaching of the Church about things like abortion, for example, are common knowledge. Few Catholics would be unaware that procured abortion is gravely wrong, and a mortal sin if procured or performed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. This is far and away more important.

As I said before, most Catholics are a lot more familiar with Catholic doctrine and moral law than they are with canon law.

But have it your way. It’s never been suggested that any Catholic has the slightest clue what the moral teaching of the Catholic Church is regarding procured abortion.

please do me the courtesy of not revisiting this argument again.

Once you stop making comments like “the only way one can AVOID incurring that consequence (other than not getting the abortion in the first place) is by not knowing about the consequence,” I probably will.

 

[aspirant]

Nobody teaches it.

More fabrications.

Therefore if it is important enough to be IN the law, it is surely important enough to inform those who are affected by it that it IS in the law.

There you go yet again, neglecting the fact that the penalty is not incurred by people who do not know the law. Doesn’t it get tiring, at some point, to continue repeating the same errors?

So tell me, Aspirant…did YOU know about this? When did you know? How many of your friends and relatives know about it?

Yes. I learned about it in 1995, a few months before becoming Catholic, while reading Evangelium Vitae. I do not most of my family members know about it, but the ones who probably don’t are not Catholic. I think most of my personal friends know it, but since most of my Catholic friends are people I met through graduate theology programs, Catholic apostolates, and pro-life activities they’re not a very representative sample.

Why isn’t it taught?

This is not the sort of thing one learns in grade school religion classes, which focus on far more important matters… The purpose of the Catechism is aid the teaching/learning of Catholic doctrine and morality. We are free to study canon law, and I think it is very good when we do, but, as I have said a number of times now, doctrine and morality are far more important.

I think it’s very valuable for Christians to have some knowledge of biblical languages like Greek. But I think it is far and away more important for them to believe in Jesus. As a missionary or catechist, I would most definitely begin with the latter.

Can you think of ANY reason why Catholics are not specifically told this, except to spare them the consequences in a very real ‘what you don’t know can’t hurt you,’ effort?

Of course, and I’ve actually discussed it. You seem remarkably unwilling to reflect on the matter.

 

[dianaiad]

All mortal sins have the same consequences.

That’s patently incorrect on the face of it, Rebecca, else why even HAVE something called ‘excommunication’ that applies to some but not to all mortal sins?

All people who have committed a mortal sin should refrain from receiving communion. All people who go to confession and receive absolution are forgiven of their sin(s). Forever. God forgets.

Perhaps…except that excommunications, while they may be lifted during confession, still need to be lifted…and not all of them can be lifted by the priest who can grant absolution for other mortal sins. While the confessional and absolution may be required for all mortal sins, not all mortal sins require the lifting of excommunication.

Maybe you missed the post a ways back in this thread where someone pointed out that a person who has had an abortion, goes to confession, and if the priest has been given authority by his bishop to give absolution for abortion…it’s done. So the excommunication lasts as long as it takes for the person to get prodded by their conscience and the Holy Spirit, to get to confession.

Nope, didn’t miss it. …but the fact that you have just included an added element to the confessional “if the priest has been given authority by his bishop to give absolution for abortion…” tells me that you almost get it. Any priest can give absolution for mortal sins, right? But not every priest has permission from his bishop to lift latae sententiae excommunications for abortion. If they do, then both things can be taken care of in the confessional…but those are two separate things. Some bishops do NOT give their priests that permission, in which case the priest can grant absolution–but the bishop must lift the excommunication. Just because both things can be done at the same time doesn’t mean that both things don’t need to BE done.

I think it is not hard to understand that a person who has shown up in a confessional, has spent some time beating themselves up over their sin, are usually contrite, ie, repentant and have spent some time in prayer, and are guided by the Holy Spirit to seek Reconciliation. Priests recognize this fact.

I’m sure they do. However, lifting that excommunication is STILL something that is done AS WELL as absolution, and priests who can do this during the confessional have to be given specific permission to do so. If they don’t have it, then they can’t lift it–even if they can grant absolution.

NOW you’re getting warmer. Hurray! I think you are starting to understand the scope of the rebellion.

I understand the scope of the problem, yes…but the number of people who are getting them still doesn’t mean that the act is a specific act of rebellion against the church the way defiling the Host, ordaining a woman or attacking the Pope would be. There are a lot of people who lie, gossip and steal, too—more than who get abortions, yet those are not considered acts of rebellion against the church, are they? Mortal sins, in many cases, yes…but not rebellion.

I admit it. I don’t get that one.

I think because you have to understand first, moral law, all mortal sins have the same consequence.

Then why add excommunication?

 

[dianaiad]

Second, not all mortal sins are a rebellion against the Church. Abortion is unique, in the sense that the Majesterium in communion with the Pope, and all the Church (including the laity) have said numerous times abortion is a mortal sin. Do not have one, for any reason.

They say the same about murder, Rebecca…and rape, and child abuse, and every other mortal sin, for that matter. What’s different about THIS one?

It is so well-known a teaching that if/when a Catholic chooses to have an abortion, they are essentially saying, “I know better than the Majesterium!” Or, as a friend of mine says, “they’ve made themselves Pope.” This is rebellion. The mortal sin of abortion is still as grave as murder, rape, etc.The consequences to one’s soul is just as grave as one to the other.

Yet they add excommunication for abortion, and not for the others.

The penalty is for rebellion, not for the sin itself.

I honestly do not see it.

However, let’s agree that the church sees it that way. Why then isn’t it made clear to everybody that it IS seen that way?

Try to see it as the wind blowing one direction.

Love to.

If it was.

It is by virtue of the numerous, numerous teachings, encyclicals, catechisms, addresses, etc given over several hundred years, and over the last 60 or so decades, like an unceasing, never ending, recording. Yet. Catholics still have abortions. Catholic politicians still want to be the Pope and publicly teach that the Church is not against abortion. The level of rebellion in this matter is unique to this time, and perhaps you will recall, we understand the Majesterium is led by the Holy Spirit, and so it is, God is helping the Church through this.

Rebecca, substitute ‘homosexual marriage,’ or ‘pedophilia,’ or ‘euthanasia" or ‘birth control’ or "slavery’ or a whole host of other mortal sins for ‘abortion’ in the above, and it would still be true…yet only abortion results in excommunication.

The penalties of Canonical Law are not doctrine. They do and can change.

But until they do, that’s what is, yes?

think to this Brazillian case. The mother was instructed, personally, by her bishop to not have the abortion done. Obviously, she was thinking about the Church or she never would have asked.

It is in the Catechism. The Church certainly tells people abortion is a mortal sin. If you are Catholic, this alone should be a large enough concern. Obviously, our Bishops have noticed many Catholics do not accept the Majesterium’s teaching that abortion is a mortal sin.

If this is why they added abortion to the list of sins that result in latae sententiae excommunication, then they should be TELLING people this. From our conversations, it is obvious that they aren’t doing that. I have been given a LOT of excuses as to why they haven’t been–and not one person has come out and said 'yes, we are taught that…"

Because you aren’t. I’m trying to understand why.

I knew abortion was/is a mortal sin long before I was baptized. For most of my life I had the view that I would never have an abortion, but I would not take a stand on another woman having one. The DOCTRINE I had to concern myself with in my conversion process is that this relativistic view is NOT CATHOLIC. So this is what I sought to understand, and over time, lots of prayer and patience, came to understand the reasoning behind it, and now, today, I agree with it. (Agreed before I was baptized.)

I never looked for the penalty because frankly, my concern was the DOCTRINE. Having accepted the doctrine, the penalty is not something that effects my acceptance of the doctrine. I wouldn’t have an abortion, or recommend an abortion, or vote pro-choice, for the fact I know it to be taking a life. One that has value, the same as yours or mine.

I’m sure it does not. However…24% of Catholic women who get pregnant have abortions. Don’t you think that THEY should have been told about this before they made this decision? Perhaps it would have stopped a few of them.

 

[zaffiroborant]

They say the same about murder, Rebecca…and rape, and child abuse, and every other mortal sin, for that matter. What’s different about THIS one?

Yet they add excommunication for abortion, and not for the others.

I honestly do not see it.

And I don’t understand why the LDS excommunicate for murder but not for abortion:shrug:

 

[TheosisM]

Perhaps what Rebecca means by all mortal sins having the same consequences is that they have the same eternal consequences. Mortal sin cuts one off from God, symbolized in being cut off from the Eucharist. If one dies in mortal sin, they go to Hell.

Or I could be wrong.

 

[RebeccaJ]

However, let’s agree that the church sees it that way. Why then isn’t it made clear to everybody that it IS seen that way?

Who’s everybody? Dianaiad reading the Code of Canon Law as though it were civil law, with no understanding of Catholic moral theology, heirarchy, sin and forgiveness?

Perhaps it is best to go back to what John Paul II said, to paraphrase, the Church has nothing to say regarding morals until a person understands the love of God.

I’m sure it does not. However…24% of Catholic women who get pregnant have abortions. Don’t you think that THEY should have been told about this before they made this decision? Perhaps it would have stopped a few of them.

Interesting statistic, don’t know that I believe it. But anyway, the Church tells us abortion is a mortal sin. If that isn’t enough, knowing or not knowing an ecclesiastical penalty is the least of the problem.

I have to wonder why it bothers you.

 

[dianaiad]

God bless you again Dianaiad.

Lets get to the root of the confusion on this matter.

Please be kind enough to re-state for me all your questions about excommunication.

I will try to answer them.

Again, God bless you Dianaiad.

I think I am coming to see the differences between the Catholic idea of excommunication and the LDS idea…

…however, that’s a side issue, mostly brought up by folks who didn’t want to deal with the main issue. Strawmen arguments abound. My questions do not so much deal with the differences in the nature of excommunication as they do the reasons they are imposed. One thing both faiths have in common is this: excommunication is the most severe penalty/remedy imposed, and both faiths look on excommunication as a ‘remedy,’ rather than a punishment. That is, both faiths impose it as a way to help the sinner repent and come back. That’s the idea, anyway, and for both faiths, when the sinner is repentant, it WORKS that way. Also, in both faiths, if the sinner is NOT repentant, it is perceived as punishment and rejection.

Either way, it is not my place to criticize what you think excommunication does; it’s your faith, it does what you claim it does, when YOU do it. By the same token, Catholics have no right to criticize what we believe excommunication does; it’s our faith. It does what we say it does, when WE do it.

But when Mormons are criticized for the way we apply it…on one hand being told that we don’t care about the sinner, but have a list of sins that, if committed, WILL get you ‘ex’d,’ and on the other, criticized for excommunicating one person, but not another who committed what looks like a similar sin… or when we are criticized because our version of excommunication doesn’t look like YOUR version of excommunication…then a few things arise, and I start comparing apples to apples.

In this case the 'apples" are…excommunication for both faiths is the most severe punishment/remedy that the church imposes. Rather like the death penalty in certain states–when you are discussing who GETS it, who cares whether it is death by lethal injection or death by hanging? That is a separate issue. What matters is who gets it and why.

When we are discussing who GETS excommunicated, I point out that it’s a little…hypocritical…of Catholics to criticize Mormons for attaching excommunications to specific sins, when WE don’t have a list of sins that automatically result in excommunication, but Catholics do. The firestorm that hits with that one revolves around the other side of the criticism of LDS excommunication; that we apply it unevenly; one sinner will be ‘ex’d’ and another won’t…

At the same time we are told that we apply excommunication unevenly, the latae sententiae excommunications are defended by saying that not everybody who has an abortion is actually guilty of the sin of abortion, and even if they are, if they don’t know about the latae sententiae excommunication part, they don’t get excommunicated.

It is a double standard that has me pulling my hair out.

Can you understand why I am getting frustrated with this entire conversation? I’m TRYING here, but it’s not working.

 

[dianaiad]

Once you stop making comments like "the only way one can AVOID incurring that consequence (other than not getting the abortion in the first place) is by not knowing about the consequence," I probably will.

AGAIN THE DISCLAIMER; when I refer to ‘abortion’ in regard to latae sententiae excommunication, it is a given that ‘getting an abortion’ means that the sin has actually been committed, with all that implies; the act was done willingly, deliberately, with full knowledge of the gravity of the offense and that it is a mortal sin.

Not everybody who gets an abortion is guilty of the SIN.

NOW will you cease? ***How many times do I have to repeat this before you stop beating the strawman? ***

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps what Rebecca means by all mortal sins having the same consequences is that they have the same eternal consequences. Mortal sin cuts one off from God, symbolized in being cut off from the Eucharist. If one dies in mortal sin, they go to Hell.

Or I could be wrong.

yes. thank you.

 

[dianaiad]

And I don’t understand why the LDS excommunicate for murder but not for abortion:shrug:

We do excommunicate for abortion, Z. Abortion is allowed only in certain rather rare circumstances…and that might explain why Mormons have far fewer ones, both numerically and relatively, than Catholics.

 

[dianaiad]

Perhaps what Rebecca means by all mortal sins having the same consequences is that they have the same eternal consequences. Mortal sin cuts one off from God, symbolized in being cut off from the Eucharist. If one dies in mortal sin, they go to Hell.

Or I could be wrong.

I can’t speak for Rebecca, of course…but I imagine that you are correct. The problem is…the church DOES impose different consequences. Perhaps ‘over and above’ is the wrong phrase, but certainly ‘in addition to’ those eternal consequences.

It may be true that the kid who fails to study for his final will flunk the test…and so will the kid who plagiarizes the essay. The ‘eternal’ ultimate consequences for both kids are the same; they both flunk the class, and they both have to come back for another year of high school. However, the kid who plagiarizes the essay ALSO gets suspended for a week, a consequence the lazy kid did NOT get.

Pointing out that both kids have the same ultimate consequence (flunking the course…) does not negate the fact that one of them ALSO got suspended, does it?