I have to inquire about this part. Can you give me some examples of this related to your situation?
i guess. but if one of these conditions are lacking, then it is venial no?
Looks to me like a distinction without a difference.
The topic is same sex unions.
IOW, not just friendship but same sex union.
Do you see a difference between the terms same sex friendship and same sex union?
Its not a matter of guessing, its in black in white in the same CCC that you quote from.
It also states that culpability may be reduced to a minimum - that reads zero in my understanding, so not even venial in some circumstances.
But of course the context was that you were talking mortal sin weren’t you.
Can you give me a link to the section of the CCC for this please
Edit: Is this it?
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
Yes it is the most likely scenario, given that in our society today, it would be hard not to notice that the Church does not accept such acts
We know how God established the order. Here’s what I personally find, the scariest passage in scripture. Luke 13:23-28 , https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lk+13%3A23-28&version=RSVCE meaning most go to hell. Sin has consequences.
My particular situation is unique in that I grew up largely outside of the Roman Catholic Church, but the issue is not peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church. It is also, by the way, not universal. There are many churches, priests and lay people who demonstrate tremendous compassion. Here are some examples, though.
Some gay and lesbian people have trouble baptizing their children. This is true in Episcopal churches as well. We had a couple who had been congregants before moving out of state return, because they couldn’t find a priest to perform the baptism.
There are churches where gay and lesbian people are made to feel unwelcome or excluded. In most churches, this is unspoken, but it is communicated loud and clear all the same. In some churches, it is outright.
There are people who are more comfortable telling someone they are destined for Hell or throwing scripture at them than sitting down to hear their story.
There are people who won’t touch or interact with someone who’s infected with HIV/AIDS - granted this isn’t a gay and lesbian issue, but it is of particular concern to the gay and lesbian community.
There are pastors who preach sermons about homosexuality without taking the time to inform themselves of the realities of those same people.
Some gay and lesbian people have trouble accessing senior care - particularly when that care is provided by faith-based organizations.
I understand why you think that - and I understand why believing that you would want to save as many people as possible from that torment. I believe that sin has consequences too. I just don’t believe that same-sex sexual activity is inherently more or less sinful than opposite-sex sexual activity. I also happen to have a different view of Hell than you do.
Why would a couple want their child baptized in a church that thought their relationship was sinful?
I’m not sure how the Catholic Church would handle this situation.
Unfortunate. I dont think Christ would have wanted that. Yes homosexual acts cannot be approved but the people should be respected and given compassion
Well if they like throwing scripture. Give them the Gospel. Sin isn’t tolerated but sinners are to be helped and loved, and to sin no more of course.
Well that’s cold.
Surely not the Catholic-based organizations?
But if the majority of Catholics through some miracle could achieve the same level of spiritual maturity as Pope Francis and see grace working even in such irregular relationships then the blessing would not signify this.
Why attack “the majority of Catholics” and drag Pope Francis into this?
Was Pope Francis SUGGESTING the Church have a formal blessing for people in a homosexual relationship??
Would you say St. Paul lacked “spiritual maturity” because he admonished a son for proverbially “marrying” his mom in 1st Corinthians (that I referred to earlier in post 182 approximately)?
How about those people who defraud the wage earner or oppress the poor?
Would you say it is spiritually mature to bless those situations and insist grace CAN work there too? (I agree that grace CAN work despite sin by the way. But that would not mean it is “mature” to “bless” a given sin)
These questions are not meant to be purely rhetorical and polemic BlackFriar. (I really am interested to see where you are going with this and why)
It is important to pay heed to our Bishops such as Cardinal Marx.
But we need to take into consideration ALL of our Bishops (i.e. at the Synod on the Family many African Bishops warned the world about “irregular relationships” concering “polygamy”).
Yes the above is one of them, the other section is what Pope Francis quoted in AL (the section on masturbation which is also a “mortal sin” as you might inaccurately put it).
…it would be hard not to notice that the Church does not accept such acts.
Again you may have put this poorly. The Church does not really “accept” or “not accept” the concrete behaviour of real individuals.
What is does is its defines abstract moral norms that, if fulfilled concretely, it warns will separate persons from God.
Whether this concrete example of “killing”, “sex” or “taking of property” is actually a fully culpable example of moral norms such as “murder”, “adultery/masturbation/sodomy” and “grave stealing” is a completely separate issue.
The last list of acts are offensive to God and destroy charity in the soul.
The first list of actions may…only God and the agent really know. Though yes, the Church would call them “gravely disordered” even if the actors are still beloved by God even in their irregular situation.
wait what acts are you saying are not acceptable and what acts are acceptable?
Also are you saying it is wrong to point out that the Church does not approve of homosexual acts? Is it so wrong to say that? After all, the CCC says that under no circumstances can they be approved.
You do not understand the precise and technical use of the words used in the CCC.
It seems the issue for you here is, what actually is a “human act” as opposed to “the action of a man”.
This is a Moral Theology 101 distinction.
“Acts” and “actions” are not at all the same thing.
You cannot expect, as an untrained layman, to understand the depth of precision in the CCC.
Which is why I humbly suggest it is dangerous for untrained laity to as it were “hit other people over the head” with raw quotes from the CCC - just apply it to oneself.
so then what is this distinction hmm?
I am actually astounded that there is a difference (not sarcasm btw)
To your point,
heterosexual Sexual activity needs to happen within marriage. Outside of marriage it’s a mortal sin. I don’t make the rules.
Homosexual activity is always against the moral law. Again I don’t make the rules.
One then has to do a cost benefit analysis to one’s activities on this side of eternity. Live our life on our terms, dismissing restrictions and consequences that are there…, or live our life the way God prescribes taking all the activities warnings on behaviors and their consequences seriously and avoiding them. This life compared to eternity on the other side, isn’t even as long as a blink. But if one is in the wrong place on the other side, one can’t even begin to get their head around eternity. A trillion years from now is still now in eternity. There is no clock in the next life. One needs to do everything possible to avoid hell
As I say, if you want to weigh in on these topics so strongly then you need to put in the hard theology yakka. Perhaps take up a Moral Theology paper at a Catholic Uni near you or similar.
Here is the thing though. You have made a distinction that i have never heard anyone use. You communicated something to rebut my statement. It would be cordial of you to explain (at least briefly) what this distinction is. If not, then i will have to conclude that there is no distinction. The reason being is because what you say must have proof, no? At least send me a link or something that will prove yourself right, i dont see you as a liar and i would think it would look good on your part to educate someone on a topic like this to help said person understand what you are saying
Go to a decent Moral Theology 101 Uni course and you will.
It is unreasonable to expect such of a lay forum of people mostly sharing their own limited education in the faith.
There must be aware there is a whole world of theological discourse you live outside of as a layman. Its true of Rocket Science and Nuclear Physics and Mathematics. Why would it be untrue of Theology and Philosphy?
then fine. i will find out for myself. I do not know if i have the funds for a course like that, so we will have to see what happens