Pope to meet with gay activist

[ringil]

Then they wouldn’t be living a chaste life

No more or less than a practicing homosexual.

Or are we to believe that homosexual acts are more sinful than masturbation. I don’t believe that the Church has stated that this is so.

 

[adrift]

No more or less than a practicing homosexual.

Or are we to believe that homosexual acts are more sinful than masturbation. I don’t believe that the Church has stated that this is so.

non sequitur

 

[philipl]

In keeping with the ancient tradition of Christianity, Pope Francis is reaching out to marginalized groups who have been discriminated against and persecuted. Gays have been denied legal rights in certain countries and murdered just for being gay in others. I see no reason why the Pope would not be open to dialogue with gay activists, just as he is with other groups of people who are also sinners.

In the USA and most of Europe, Gays are not marginalized. They are an extemely small minority and yet can cause representaives, senators, judges, Presidents, elected officals, businesses to quake in their shoes.

 

[xNoOnex]

In the USA and most of Europe, Gays are not marginalized. They are an extemely small minority and yet can cause representaives, senators, judges, Presidents, elected officals, businesses to quake in their shoes.

When I see comments like this, I can’t help but wonder if they people saying them have ever encountered a homosexual or transgendered person in real life. Minorities, allegedly, are not marginalized by the law either and that our legal system protects people regardless of class. Unfortunately, that isn’t always true.

The LGBT community is very much marginalized. Young people often face constant bullying, sometimes to the point where they were driven to suicide. In many cases, people are disowned by their family if they “come out”. And while both sides are quick to point out more and more people are accepting of “gay marriage” for good or ill, there’s a very loud minority that is still very discriminatory.

 

[JimG]

Would you not say a heterosexual couple using contraception also engages in “abominable” sex?

They are engaging in the enabling sin which led to the rest of the sexual sins, up to and including same sex unions.

 

[ringil]

They are engaging in the enabling sin which led to the rest of the sexual sins, up to and including same sex unions.

Well, this thought process might make sense to you but it isn’t necessarily reflective of Church teaching.

Mortal sin is mortal sin. Grave matter is grave matter.

The Church has not defined homosexual acts as more or less grave than other sexual sins.

There is a fixation on this sin by some.

 

[Suudy]

There is no “grading” of mortal sin.

Yes, there is.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. ii, a. 9; I-II.73.5).

And more in Summa Theologica.

Specifically, some carnal sins are greater than others. It takes some work to sort through the SA to get the list, but it’s boiled down well here:

crisismagazine.com/2012/human-nature-and-aquinas-taxonomy-of-sexual-sins

 

[Suudy]

Or are we to believe that homosexual acts are more sinful than masturbation. I don’t believe that the Church has stated that this is so.

It is. See my other post.

Mortal sin is mortal sin. Grave matter is grave matter.

This is sort of true. All mortal sin risk a soul going to hell. But not all mortal sins are of the same gravity. See my other post.

The Church has not defined homosexual acts as more or less grave than other sexual sins.

Aquinas has. And he is a Doctor of the Church.

There is a fixation on this sin by some.

Because it is one of the most egregious of sexual sins.

 

[ringil]

It is. See my other post.

This is sort of true. All mortal sin risk a soul going to hell. But not all mortal sins are of the same gravity. See my other post.

Aquinas has. And he is a Doctor of the Church.

Because it is one of the most egregious of sexual sins.

Where has the Church stated that homosexual activity is a sin of greater gravity than adultery, or even masturbation.

You bring up Aquinas and I believe I heard that he ranked masturbation above adultery so there we go.

 

[eamonnroma]

Yes, there is.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. ii, a. 9; I-II.73.5).

And more in Summa Theologica.

Specifically, some carnal sins are greater than others. It takes some work to sort through the SA to get the list, but it’s boiled down well here:

crisismagazine.com/2012/human-nature-and-aquinas-taxonomy-of-sexual-sins

Aquinas or no Aquinas - this is total nonsense. If you take ‘different grades of mortal sin’ to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the people who go to Hell because of mortal sin, would have different grades of punishment. Maybe for the person who commits a more serious sin, the flames of Hell will be hotter?

 

[philipl]

And of course heterosexuals NEVER engage in abominable sex on occasion…

The difference being, with heterosexuals, they are not trying to make normal such sex acts. Homosexual sex is abnormal. There is no way to justify it and make it acceptable. We have a movement in the church trying to make homosexual sex the same as hetrosexual sex when it is not the same in any shape form or fashion.

 

[OraLabora]

The difference being, with heterosexuals, they are not trying to make normal such sex acts. Homosexual sex is abnormal. There is no way to justify it and make it acceptable. We have a movement in the church trying to make homosexual sex the same as hetrosexual sex when it is not the same in any shape form or fashion.

Are you kidding me? Oral (heterosexual) sex has become so normal, it’s almost an expectation in most sexual relationships, at least those that don’t attempt to be devout.

Same with pre-marital sex, living together without being married, on-demand divorce, masturbation, artificial birth control, artificial insemination, pornography, immodesty.

All either abnormal or immoral, all pretty much de facto normalized by society. In short, modern society has pretty much normalized “anything goes” sexual behaviour between consenting adults.

Aquinas has. And he is a Doctor of the Church.

Which makes it a learned opinion that can be used in forming one’s conscience, but not de fide.

 

[J_Peterson]

Where has the Church stated that homosexual activity is a sin of greater gravity than adultery, or even masturbation.

You bring up Aquinas and I believe I heard that he ranked masturbation above adultery so there we go.

He also ranked masturbation as a worse sin than rape so I’m okay not considering everything he said to be gospel truth. In my cursory look at the thought of St. Thomas I found that I agreed with him in most ways except when it came to applied morality. His ideas are very outdated by today’s standards. Since he respected the science of his day, I think he would rethink some of his ideas if he was alive today.

 

[philipl]

Are you kidding me? Oral (heterosexual) sex has become so normal, it’s almost an expectation in most sexual relationships, at least those that don’t attempt to be devout.

Same with pre-marital sex, living together without being married, on-demand divorce, masturbation, artificial birth control, artificial insemination, pornography, immodesty.

All either abnormal or immoral, all pretty much de facto normalized by society. In short, modern society has pretty much normalized “anything goes” sexual behaviour between consenting adults.

Which makes it a learned opinion that can be used in forming one’s conscience, but not de fide.

I am not saying it doesnt happen, I am saying that Gay Catholics are fighting to have homosexual sex accepted as normal. They want the church to marry them. Homosexual sex is wrong, just as all those thing you wrote are wrong.

 

[philipl]

Exactly! For the Church, using contraception is disordered. Therefore sex with contraception is abominable.

It is clear that the majority of Catholics use contraception, for confirmation of this, we just need to look at the size of Catholic families, ie 2 or 3 children and not 10.

This must mean that the average Catholic heterosexual lifestyle is abominable.

And the church must not make it acceptable to use it. If the church tomorrow says that birth control (the pill) is ok. Then we have a problem.

 

[JimG]

Aquinas or no Aquinas - this is total nonsense. If you take ‘different grades of mortal sin’ to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the people who go to Hell because of mortal sin, would have different grades of punishment. Maybe for the person who commits a more serious sin, the flames of Hell will be hotter?

I don’t know without looking it up if that is official teaching, but I seem to recall that it has always been taught that there are different degrees of punishment in hell, just as there are varying degrees of happiness in heaven, depending on the perfection and state of the soul.

 

[Suudy]

Aquinas or no Aquinas - this is total nonsense. If you take ‘different grades of mortal sin’ to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the people who go to Hell because of mortal sin, would have different grades of punishment. Maybe for the person who commits a more serious sin, the flames of Hell will be hotter?

It has been taught that there are degrees of hell, just as there are degrees of heaven. From the Baltimore Catechism (which carries both an imprimatur and nihil obstat):
Q. 1398. Are the rewards in heaven and the punishments in hell the same for all who enter into either of these states?

A. The rewards of heaven and the punishments in hell are not the same for all who enter into either of these states, because each one’s reward or punishment is in proportion to the amount of good or evil he has done in this world. But as heaven and hell are everlasting, each one will enjoy his reward or suffer his punishment forever.

Which is also consistent with other Catholic philosophers, such as Peter Kreeft. In this list of 14 questions about heaven:
Of course there are degrees of perfection in Heaven; it is quite the divine style. There are degrees of perfection in everything God created (though not in everything we create). Equality is a man-made legal fiction designed as a wall of defense against tyranny, a medicine against a disease.

And more. There is a long history of Church thought on degrees of heaven and hell. And while there isn’t any official Church teaching (i.e. an infallible statement) confirming levels of heaven or hell, nor is there one against them. And given the history of thought, including a Doctor of the Church, I think it quite reasonable to think there are degrees of hell.

 

[Suudy]

He also ranked masturbation as a worse sin than rape so I’m okay not considering everything he said to be gospel truth.

Only with regard to sexual sin. There are other types of sins with regard to rape. Note that Aquinas was ranking only the sexual sins. As a whole, rape is worse than masturbation. From this article:

Aquinas is focusing on the sins precisely as a violation of the right use of sexuality, and abstracting from other aspects of them. As justice is a greater virtue than chastity, so injustice is a greater evil than unchastity, and thus all things considered, Aquinas would consider rape a greater evil than masturbation or contraception. This formal way of speaking is recognized by some more considerate authors:

The teaching of medieval theologians that such sexual sins as masturbation, sodomy, and contraception are more perverse, as sexual sins, than fornication or adultery or even rape (the former were said to be contra naturam whereas the latter were said to be praeter naturam), angers many people today. But this teaching must be understood properly. The medieval theologians are claiming that certain kinds of sexual sins more seriously offend the virtue of chastity than do others. They are not saying that these sins are for this reason less grave as sins than adultery or rape, for instance. After all, adultery and rape are very serious violations of the virtue of justice as well as being violations of the virtue of chastity. Thus, as a sin, rape is far more serious than masturbation or homosexual sodomy because it not only offends chastity but also gravely violates justice. (Ronald David Lawler, Joseph M. Boyle, William E. May, Catholic sexual ethics: a summary, explanation & defense).​

In my cursory look at the thought of St. Thomas I found that I agreed with him in most ways except when it came to applied morality.

Then I think your reading needs to be more than cursory, because he never said masturbation, as a whole, is worse than rape, as a whole. Which is what your statement above indicates.

His ideas are very outdated by today’s standards.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Are we to judge Aquinas by today’s standards? Or should be judge today’s standards by Aquinas’ ideas? I think it arrogant to assume that today’s ideas are somehow better than yesterday’s just because of the difference in time. Today’s standards are not the basis for judgement. The truth of the statements are the standard.

Since he respected the science of his day, I think he would rethink some of his ideas if he was alive today.

What does science have to do with it? He was discussion sins of chastity, which isn’t a scientific issue. And since when is morality a scientific issue?

 

[Suudy]

Where has the Church stated that homosexual activity is a sin of greater gravity than adultery, or even masturbation.

What do you want, an ex cathedra statement? You won’t find one regarding thousands of moral issues. Rather, we can rely upon the body of works generated by the Church and Church fathers (and prominent ones such as Aquinas), to determine this.

You bring up Aquinas and I believe I heard that he ranked masturbation above adultery so there we go.

See my prior post. As a sin against chastity, masturbation is worse than adultery. But adultery is also a sin against justice. And sins against justice are more grave than sins against chastity. So as a whole, adultery is worse than masturbation.

So there we go.

 

[Suudy]

Which makes it a learned opinion that can be used in forming one’s conscience, but not de fide.

Nor is the statement that all moral sins are equal. The difference is that there are more learned opinions supporting the notion of degrees of hell than there are that all mortal sins are equal.