Vatican City Seek

Apologies ahead of time for the length and occasional repeats in this post. Amidst all of the recent controversy concerning the Church's recent reiteration of its stand against homosexuality as a grievous sin, we Catholics should not forget that a grievous sin is not necessarily a mortal sin that endangers a person's soul and cuts them off from God.  For a sin to be truly mortal all three of the following must be present: 1. The sin must be of a serious and grievous nature.  Stealing a pencil from work is not serious; embezzling millions of dollars from your employees' pension funds is serious.  Checking out the SI swimsuit issue is not serious, cheating on your wife and ruining your marriage is serious.  The church has designated homosexual relations to be serious, a designation also used for murder, masturbation, missing mass on Sunday, and in the past (I'm old enough to remember this) eating meat on Friday.  You can draw your own conclusions concerning the Church's consistency and logic in the application of the serious label to particular sins. 2. The sinner must know they are doing something wrong.  Taking luggage from the airport that looks exactly like yours is not the sin of theft, just an honest mistake. 3. It must be a willful act.  Sins committed while drunk or under the influence of drugs are not mortal as the sinner's judgment was impaired. Similarly, when a mad man murders someone, he is not sinning since he had not ability to exercise his free will.  When those teenage hormones kick in, it's arguable that making it in the back seat of a car is not a mortal sin as teenagers are not famous for clear thinking. Let us assume that homosexuality is an orientation, like being straight or left-handed, instead of a choice.  As a straight man I can't imagine why anyone would choose to be gay and suffer the taunts, abuse and discrimination that typically comes with being gay.  The origin of this orientation is somewhat irrelevant, whether it is psychological, genetic or a hormonal imbalance incurred in the womb.  While under the influence of this orientation, it could be argued that gays are not committing mortal sins, only venial sins that will require a stay in Purgatory. In fact, the logic of Church doctrine would conclude that homosexuality is a mortal sin only when performed by straight people. Is homosexuality a sin? Of course it is.  IIRC, the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as unclean - along with eating shellfish (or pork, or camels, or lizards), wearing a coat made of two kinds of cloth, planting two different seeds in a farm field, or getting a tattoo (see Leviticus).  For lying with another man, the penalty was stoning to death - the same penalty for arguing with your parents (see Deuteronomy).  Paul said that homosexuals would not see the kingdom - neither will liars. As someone who likes shrimp and bacon, has argued with his old man, and lied on occasion I am forever grateful for the saving grace of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and for God's ever ready forgiveness - apparently I'm as big a sinner as any homosexual.  Is homosexuality a sin? Yes.  Is it a serious or big sin? Not IMHO. Under the compulsion of their sexual orientation, gays cannot be committing a mortal sin when engaging in homosexual sex.  They don't meet all three requirements (seriousness, knowledge and willfulness) for a mortal sin and can only be committing venial sins.  That buys them time in Purgatory, not permanent damnation in Hell.  Since these sins are venial in nature, they do not have to be confessed to a priest in auricle confession, prayer directly to God is sufficient. As for the Church's recent reiteration of its opposition to homosexuality, I find that to be appalling hypocritical in light of the recent sex scandals and the fact that the clergy is a primarily gay profession (This is not in itself a bad thing.  Father Mike, the heroic fireman's priest who died on 9/11, was gay  and by all accounts a darn good priest).  Given the recent revelation of a secret Vatican document from the early 60s mandating silence on these crimes on pain of excommunication, I can only conclude that there is one rule for the clergy and another for the laity.  I can also conclude that the church considers consensual sex between two adults (or for that matter the wearing of a condom) to be far more serious than abusing helpless children.  Nobody knows how many priests actually engaged in this abuse (estimates run as low as 3%).  However, it is apparent that the collusion and cover-up were widespread and endemic to the entire Church.  Jesus had the appropriate words for those in the Church hierarchy who would condemn gays (from Matthew 7, 1-5): Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. I also find Jesus words to the Pharisees of his day to be particularity apt (from Matthew 23): The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them . . . Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. I'm having a hard time dealing with the realization that my Church, the Church I was born into and deeply care about, is a white washed tomb run by modern Pharisees. As for the Church's doctrine concerning homosexuality (or any of the pelvic issues like birth control) Catholics should keep in mind the concept of an Informed Conscience as formulated by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica .  We are free to question, debate, argue or otherwise disbelieve any and all non-infallible Church doctrines.  Last time I check there were only two infallible doctrines in all of Church dogma, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.  An informed conscience is an absolute necessity for the individual Catholic since over the centuries the church has been in favor of the following: Burning heretics (burning witches was a Protestant thing). Torturing people by the inquisition. Waging holy wars against Muslims. Committing genocide against the Albigensians (among others). Promoting the corrupting sale of indulgences, a major trigger of the Protestant reformation. Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu). Opposing the lending of money at interest. Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism. Though it has tried to mitigate (whenever it could) the abuses of slavery it never opposed it as an institution, and when slavery died it did so without benefit of clergy. And though individual Popes have protected and sheltered Jews whenever possible, the church on the whole has until this century always persecuted Jews or connived at their persecution (JPII recently apologized for such sins). In short, Church dogma is subject to change and has often defended or promoted morally repugnant behavior.  Can anyone in their right mind consider the Borgia Popes to be infallible or exemplars of moral behavior? It shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of informed conscience if you equate it with being in mental lock step with Vatican dogma.  Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica intended quite the opposite.  Informed conscience is intended to be a moral safeguard against such dogmatic abuses. Informed conscience is a get out of dogma free card, provided: a. The reasoning is thorough and the result of long study and prayer. b. It is not for selfish reasons but for moral reasons that a conclusion is arrived at. c. It does not directly contradict the word of God (i.e. no amount of IC could justify cold blooded murder). A good Catholic is not a sheep.  I'm proud to say that I belong to a religion - not a cult.  As such, I'm allowed to use the brains God gave me and not blindly follow like a programmed robot. Respectfully yours, Daniel Duffy

any and all non-infallible Church doctrines. Then you better go back and learn a bit about what the Church really believes.  You are confusing ex-cathedra and infallible with true. There are a lot of infallible Church doctrines that have never been proclaimed ex-cathedra.  The diety of Jesus, the Ressurrection, the Ascension, the Trinity, the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, the veracity of _script_ure, etc, have never been proclaimed ex-cathedra, yet not only are they true, but if you disagree with them you shouldn't call yourself Catholic. Agreed. These things have not been declared ex cathedra, but they have been defined infallibly. According to the Catechism, the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. (Catechism, 891) While these statements have teachings have not been declared ex cathedra by any pope, they have all been declared by Ecumenical Councils and are therefore infallible teachings. Even if something is not delared infallably, when the successors of the apostles, in communion with the Pope, propopose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals, the faithful are to adhere to this ordinary teaching with religious assent.  (Catechism, 892) I suppose this doesn't mean you can't disagree with the non-infallible teaching, but you are obligated to adhere to it anyway. In Christ, Bill

children.  Nobody knows how many priests actually engaged in this abuse (estimates run as low as 3%).  However, it is apparent that the collusion and cover-up were widespread and endemic to the entire Church.  Jesus had the appropriate words for those in the Church hierarchy who would condemn gays (from Matthew 7, 1-5): Huh? How is the standard different? First of all, the secret Vatican document to which you refer isn't what the media is saying it is. Read the article at http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=24023 for more. But the Church never taught the pedophilia was not mortally sinful. Unfortunately, many bishops didn't handle the situations the way the should have, IMO, but no one said it wasn't a serious sin. And what numbers do you have

    Sorry, but being declared by a council does not, in itself make a statement infallible.