your opinions on gays

[johnstown_johnn]

I’ve never read anywhere that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit had anything to do with sexual sin. Now, if a person has reached the level of existence where they would blaspheme the Holy Spirit, I can believe that person would have a much lower tolerance for committing any other kind of mortal sin.

Sister taught us that we should always be on guard against committing ANY sin, venial or mortal, because it is a slippery slope. Committing one sin makes it easier to commit another and another.

“The body” is the “temple of the Holy Spirit.”

You can take it from there!

 

[Fitswimmer]

So, is there a name to that kind of sin mentioned by Jesus in Mathew 12:32?

The entire article is too long so here is the site: newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness”, he adds at once: “Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.” With this sin of pure downright malice, Jesus contrasts the sin “against the Son of man”, that is the sin committed against Himself as man, the wrong done to His humanity in judging Him by His humble and lowly appearance. This fault, unlike the former, might he excused as the result of man’s ignorance and misunderstanding.

St. Thomas, whom we may safely follow, gives a very good summary of opinions in II-II, Q. xiv. He says that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was and may be explained in three ways.
Sometimes, and in its most literal signification, it has been taken to mean the uttering of an insult against the Divine Spirit, applying the appellation either to the Holy Ghost or to all three Divine persons. This was the sin of the Pharisees, who spoke at first against “the Son of Man”, criticizing the works and human ways of Jesus, accusing Him of loving good cheer and wine, of associating with the publicans, and who, later on, with undoubted bad faith, traduced His Divine works, the miracles which He wrought by virtue of His own Divinity.
On the other hand, St. Augustine frequently explains blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be final impenitence, perseverance till death in mortal sin. This impenitence is against the Holy Ghost, in the sense that it frustrates and is absolutely opposed to the remission of sins, and this remission is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, the mutual love of the Father and the Son. In this view, Jesus, in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 did not really accuse the Pharisees of blaspheming the Holy Ghost, He only warned them against the danger they were in of doing so.
Finally, several Fathers, and after them, many scholastic theologians, apply the expression to all sins directly opposed to that quality which is, by appropriation, the characteristic quality of the Third Divine Person. Charity and goodness are especially attributed to the Holy Ghost, as power is to the Father and wisdom to the Son. Just, then, as they termed sins against the Father those that resulted from frailty, and sins against the Son those that sprang from ignorance, so the sins against the Holy Ghost are those that are committed from downright malice, either by despising or rejecting the inspirations and impulses which, having been stirred in man’s soul by the Holy Ghost, would turn him away or deliver him from evil.
It is easy to see how this wide explanation suits all the circumstances of the case where Christ addresses the words to the Pharisees. These sins are commonly reckoned six: despair, presumption, impenitence or a fixed determination not to repent, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and envy of another’s spiritual welfare.

In a word, the irremissableness of the sins against the Holy Ghost is exclusively on the part of the sinner, on account of the sinner’s act.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
So, is there a name to that kind of sin mentioned by Jesus in Mathew 12:32?
The entire article is too long so here is the site: newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

Quote:
So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness”, he adds at once: “Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.” With this sin of pure downright malice, Jesus contrasts the sin “against the Son of man”, that is the sin committed against Himself as man, the wrong done to His humanity in judging Him by His humble and lowly appearance. This fault, unlike the former, might he excused as the result of man’s ignorance and misunderstanding.

St. Thomas, whom we may safely follow, gives a very good summary of opinions in II-II, Q. xiv. He says that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was and may be explained in three ways.
Sometimes, and in its most literal signification, it has been taken to mean the uttering of an insult against the Divine Spirit, applying the appellation either to the Holy Ghost or to all three Divine persons. This was the sin of the Pharisees, who spoke at first against “the Son of Man”, criticizing the works and human ways of Jesus, accusing Him of loving good cheer and wine, of associating with the publicans, and who, later on, with undoubted bad faith, traduced His Divine works, the miracles which He wrought by virtue of His own Divinity.
On the other hand, St. Augustine frequently explains blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be final impenitence, perseverance till death in mortal sin. This impenitence is against the Holy Ghost, in the sense that it frustrates and is absolutely opposed to the remission of sins, and this remission is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, the mutual love of the Father and the Son. In this view, Jesus, in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 did not really accuse the Pharisees of blaspheming the Holy Ghost, He only warned them against the danger they were in of doing so.
Finally, several Fathers, and after them, many scholastic theologians, apply the expression to all sins directly opposed to that quality which is, by appropriation, the characteristic quality of the Third Divine Person. Charity and goodness are especially attributed to the Holy Ghost, as power is to the Father and wisdom to the Son. Just, then, as they termed sins against the Father those that resulted from frailty, and sins against the Son those that sprang from ignorance, so the sins against the Holy Ghost are those that are committed from downright malice, either by despising or rejecting the inspirations and impulses which, having been stirred in man’s soul by the Holy Ghost, would turn him away or deliver him from evil.
It is easy to see how this wide explanation suits all the circumstances of the case where Christ addresses the words to the Pharisees. These sins are commonly reckoned six: despair, presumption, impenitence or a fixed determination not to repent, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and envy of another’s spiritual welfare.

In a word, the irremissableness of the sins against the Holy Ghost is exclusively on the part of the sinner, on account of the sinner’s act.
Reply With QuoteThe entire article is too long so here is the site: newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

OK…Now, it is said that there are two kinds of sins: mortal and venial. I agree with that. But what do we call that sin against the Holy Spirit? Is it mortal sin or venial sin?

 

[rlg94086]

I think there is a mistake here. The word “homosexual” above should have been “heterosexual”. Am I right, rlg?

No. I am referring to the sexual acts typically done by two homosexuals. I don’t know how else to describe them without getting graphic, and I really don’t want to go there.

 

[rlg94086]

A married couple where one of the spouses has an infectious disease will abstain.

Yep.

 

[cgirl4ever]

personally, I don’t think that any man or woman is born with an attraction to the same sex. But I don’t beleive in calling them names like fag or fairy. Leave them alone. How is calling them names because you are against their orienation going to bring them to God. We should love them like everyonelse. They are children of God like us . I think that the church tries to push them away too much.

 

[Pug]

I agree with you Pug. But I need an enlightenment about something. If there are two kinds of sins: mortal and venial, and mortal sin is also forgivable when the sinner confesses his sins, what do we call that sin mentioned by Jesus in Mathew 12:32 which is not forgivable “either in this world or in the world to come.”?

Well, I don’t think anyone posted this CCC, so I will. It mentions this topic that you are talking about, but it is quoting verse 31:

**1864 **“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

This is perhaps implying that it is a sin of rejecting God’s mercy, of rejecting salvation, of rejecting a call by the HS to come to confession, or some such thing. This would be grave/mortal, IMO. But then, in some sense it probably doesn’t matter how we classify this because it is a type of sin (as described here) that is done while one is already not in a state of grace.

When I read the synoptics themselves, I don’t tend to identify the sin the way it is used there in the CCC. Here is a cut from the Navarre Bible, but I only have the portion from Mark, not from Matthew. Anyway, maybe this helps:

[The note on Mark 3:28-30 states: 28-30. Jesus has just worked a miracle but the scribes refuse to recognize it “for they had said `He has an unclean spirit’” (verse 30). They do not want to admit that God is the author of the miracle. In this attitude lies the special gravity of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit–attributing to the prince of evil, to Satan, the good works per- formed by God Himself. Anyone acting in this way will become like the sick person who has so lost confidence in the doctor that he rejects him as if an enemy and regards as poison the medicine that can save his life. That is why our Lord says that he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not forgiven: not because God cannot for- give all sins, but because that person, in his blindness towards God, rejects Jesus Christ, His teaching and His miracles, and despises the graces of the Holy Spirit as if they were designed to trap him (cf. “St. Pius V Catechism”, II, 5, 19; St. Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theolo- giae”, II-II, q. 14, a. 3).]

 

[Bennie_P]

OK…Now, it is said that there are two kinds of sins: mortal and venial. I agree with that. But what do we call that sin against the Holy Spirit? Is it mortal sin or venial sin?

It would be mortal sin.

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

2091 The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption: By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises - and to his mercy.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.622

Here is an online CCC with a very good search engine.
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

 

[Bennie_P]

personally, I don’t think that any man or woman is born with an attraction to the same sex. But I don’t beleive in calling them names like fag or fairy. Leave them alone. How is calling them names because you are against their orienation going to bring them to God. We should love them like everyonelse. They are children of God like us . I think that the church tries to push them away too much.

The Church doesn’t push anyone away, it just calls all to follow the teachings of Christ and His Church. The Church doesn’t go hunting people down to expose them in their sin, if you can show us a case where the Church does this (in modern times) then your post would have some merit. In fact the case seems to be the exact opposite, for some people that practice certain sins seem to make concerted efforts making confrontations against the Chuch and pursue organized attacks against the Church even on Church grounds. To the point of trying to blame the aids epidemic on Church teachings on sexuality and morality instead of people’s own sinful behavoir.

The sacrilegious scene at St. Patrick’s was the latest in a series of increasingly militant demonstrations, many against the Roman Catholic Church, staged by AIDS activists and supported by abortion-rights groups. The New York City protest, in which 4,500 people also rallied noisily outside the cathedral, was largely the work of the Aids Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP). The group claims to have 40 chapters in the U.S. as well as others in Paris, Berlin and London. Another AIDS protest group this month threw red paint on four Catholic churches in Los Angeles and left posters of Archbishop Roger Mahony labeled MURDERER. In San Francisco gay activists smeared handprints in paint and hung posters depicting sex acts in the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption and the archdiocese chancery. Full story

http://www.actupny.org/documents/stopchurch.JPG

 

[goofyjim]

Oh come on. Homosexuality certainly does not qualify as the unforgivable sin. Let’s get serious.

 

[Meathead]

Well Homosexuality in itself isn’t a mortal sin… But acting on those impulses is.

 

[Newbie2]

Oh come on. Homosexuality certainly does not qualify as the unforgivable sin. Let’s get serious.

Dittos.

Apostasy is the only unforgivable one.

Maybe the reference is that homosexuality is not forgiven whilst one is continuing to live the lifestyle, i.e. not demonstrating a change in heart?

 

[Pug]

Apostasy is the only unforgivable one.

Apostasy is forgivable. You can go to confession for that one, just like you can go to confession for other sins.

 

[urban-hermit]

I really don’t want to get into particulars RomanCrusader because this is a family show, but the acts that homosexuals perform are considered acceptable if a married man and woman perform them with each other, as long as they are only part of (i.e. leading up to) the unitive and procreative act.

Therefore, I don’t think that homosexual sex acts themselves can be considered “mutilating ones body” or a “demonic-like abuse of the human body.”

RLG: Sorry to be picky about this, but I bolded a few words in your post because I don’t think it’s quite correct to phrase it that way. I would substitute the phrase “can possibly be acceptable” instead.

It’s quite possible that married couples who engage in the kinds of acts which homosexual men and lesbians often do (oral/anal and mutual masturbation) might also fall into the trap of ruining the goodness of sexual pleasure by making an idol out of it, which can lead to that constant craving for greater and greater kinkiness, etc, in order to feel satisfied.

Just because a couple is married doesn’t mean they are automatically immune to sexual sin, even with eachother. Married chastity includes fidelity, unitive self-giving, and openness to life, but it also includes an awareness that sex is not the be-all and end-all. Even within marriage it is possible to make an idol of the body of your spouse, or an idol out of sexual pleasure as an end in itself, rather than as a beautiful by-product of unitive and procreative relations.

Might seem like a minor point, but I think that is true.

Be that as it may, homosexual sex partners are in a different boat altogether. The homosexual man or lesbian who engages in those same acts is performing deeds that are intrinsically evil. It may not seem fair, but I believe it is correct to say that while various forms of mutual stimulation might be moral and acceptable for married couples if performed with the right intentions, these same deeds when performed by same-sex sex partners never can be.

I am sure that many homosexual partners have a real fondness and affection for one another – and if they left it at that they’d be better off – but often they don’t, and the problem we are talking about here has to do with objective reality and the physical constraints that same-sex sex partners invariably experience: their acts physically lack the complementarity that male-female relations have, because their bodies physically lack that complementarity.

This is why they must make due with either attempting to somehow mimic the male anatomy (in the case of lesbians) or attempting to mimic the female anatomy (in the case of homosexual men). And that mimicry, or foreplay, or whatever you want to call it, is as far as they can ever get. They can never achieve the finality which a husband and wife can do.

 

[urban-hermit]

The entire article is too long so here is the site: newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

Thank you Fitswimmer for this and all your posts. It’s a pleasure for me to read your posts here on the forum!

I want to take the liberty of quoting just the last part of the excerpt you quoted because I think it captures the essence of what is meant by the “unforgivable sin” or the “sin against the Holy Spirit” - that being an unbelieving mindset or attitude, rather than a particular misdeed or foul utterance.

It is easy to see how this wide explanation suits all the circumstances of the case where Christ addresses the words to the Pharisees. These sins are commonly reckoned six: despair, presumption, impenitence or a fixed determination not to repent, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and envy of another’s spiritual welfare.

In a word, the irremissableness of the sins against the Holy Ghost is exclusively on the part of the sinner, on account of the sinner’s act.

Mother Angelica gave a beautiful classic reflection on the sin against the Holy Spirit while expounding upon Matthew 26, and you can listen to it at the ewtn website. It is only about 25 minutes long - shorter than a sit-com, and much more worthy of our time.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

Click here for reflections on other scripture passages

 

[Newbie2]

Apostasy is forgivable. You can go to confession for that one, just like you can go to confession for other sins.

If one is in a state of apostasy, they won’t want to go to confession. Former apostetics (is that a real word?), yes, forgivable when they “come back”.

 

[agangbern]

…

 

[Fitswimmer]

Oh come on. Homosexuality certainly does not qualify as the unforgivable sin. Let’s get serious.

I have to mention that some of the talk about how sinful even chaste homosexuals are strikes me as a way to make one’s own sinful nature look “less bad”. If I can find someone else’s sin that is “worse” than mine, then my sins must not be that horrible.

Jesus mentioned this type of thing once too:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Of course, only God knows the content of anyone’s heart. It’s just something that wouldn’t let me go this morning.

 

[goofyjim]

I have to mention that some of the talk about how sinful even chaste homosexuals are strikes me as a way to make one’s own sinful nature look “less bad”. If I can find someone else’s sin that is “worse” than mine, then my sins must not be that horrible.

Jesus mentioned this type of thing once too:

Of course, only God knows the content of anyone’s heart. It’s just something that wouldn’t let me go this morning.

You must have been paying attention at Mass this morning.

 

[rlg94086]

You must have been paying attention at Mass this morning.

That was a great reading today. Plus, I liked our priest’s homily. He said, we also shouldn’t think we are better than the Pharisee.