Originally Posted By Mr X Well, sex and rape are different. One is a crime, and might even get you covered up and cloistered. The other is a sin, but lots of fun, and considering that all sins are the same and I haven't been to church on sunday in a LONG time...I'll take my chances.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle Oh, my comment did look a little confusing. I just meant that I thought both comments were funny, and copied them so you'd know what I was laughing about. But absolutely, if all sins are the same you might as well get "charged" with premarital sex rather than not going to Church each week. Just don't forget to confess!
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, you COULD call it confessing but in my case bragging would be more appropriate. And yes I did realize that your intent was for both those quotes to be seperate.
Originally Posted By onlyme This notion of venial vs. mortal sin is totally absurd. Sin is sin. There's no distinction ever mentioned in the Bible. Why do they come up with all of these rules, bylaws, etc...? I know the answer, so no need to reply. Regarding Religion in general; we have the religion of Jesus and religion about Jesus. Two very distinct entities. The latter is a very scary thing indeed. "If the blind lead the blind, they both will fall into a ditch." The teachings of Jesus, according to the Bible, are in direct contrast of what most religious 'cults' propogate as The Truth. Poor people, who unknowingly, follow people along with all of their ridiculious rules and regulations, only to find themselves just as 'empty' as when they were 'lost'.
Originally Posted By Mr X What I find absurd is the notion that any sin can somehow be forgiven (even such brutalities as those commited by the likes of Hussein or Hitler), awarding such scumbags eternal life in heaven BUT... Sins are somehow catagorized and the "worst" sinners are somehow punished more in hell. It doesn't jive, even if you DO believe in this stuff.
Originally Posted By cmpaley First, let me say that the willful ignorance and twisting of what I say is mind-boggling. Second, I just confirmed with my priest that a confessor can place conditions on absolution. If anyone comes to a priest and confesses a crime, he can make the absolution contingent upon the penitent turning him/herself in to the authorities. There IS a distinction in the Bible between sins, as well. 1 John 5:17 specifically says, "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." Sin not unto death is what we call venial sin and sin unto death is what we call mortal sin.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>>required to turn themselves in to the civil authorities or placed in cloister under intensive spiritual direction where<<< You really believe that rapist priests are above reproach and above the law, don't you? I can't believe I just read this! What right does the church have to protect it's own from criminal justice? (the answer you're looking for is NONE) This sentiment is a living example of what superdry was talking about, putting priests on a pedestal and considering them "sacred" no matter what horrible acts they commit.<< Actually, under both choices, the molester may lose their freedom. In the case of those who are laicized and submit to the civil justice system...where they could GET OFF SCOTT FREE, those convicted would be incarcerated for less time in our prison system than otherwise. Those who choose cloister (which means enclosure) would never get out and could only leave under the condition of submitting to the civil authorities for trial. And when I say intense spiritual direction, I mean lots and lots of penances.
Originally Posted By Mr X Still and all, I'd say that sounds a lot more like finding a loophole... Not to mention it would mean the church was taking the law into its own hands. And how could they prevent a priest in cloister or whatever from simply running away? Do they physically constrain them (if so, that in itself sounds like a crime!)?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>***Those who abuse the innocent are in for a much worse and intolerable Hell than those who skip out on Mass.*** See, now here is where you make no sense at all. IF you believe all that stuff about heaven being perfect and wonderful, you must ALSO believe that hell is the opposite. Eternally horrible, painful, whatever. << Yes. >>Plus, Satan is totally evil right? Why would the embodiment of evil care what sins you committed. Wouldn't he joyful torture each and every soul equally? << satan doesn't do the torturing. satan is one of the tortured in hell. He only cares that you are there. Of course, since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and holy orders impress a spiritual character on the soul, he gets more satisfaction out of seeing those souls tormented with him, ESPECIALLY those with holy orders. >>To assume that he is justly meting out punishments based on HOW BAD you were in life, would seem to indicate that Satan is a just and fair being. Hardly different from god, then. You have a strange view of the afterlife, even for a Catholic!<< The torments in hell will be worse based on your own mind. The regret and sorrow for those who could have been in heaven because of their relationship to the means of salvation will be far, far worse than those who have a lesser relationship to those means. That's what my statement means. satan's goal is just to get you to hell, not torment you once there.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I think you're not giving yourself enough credit. I could have the Catechism sitting next to my keyboard and Google at the ready and still not have nearly the insight to cannon Catholicism that my interactions with you have provided.<< Well, considering I had to become convinced that the Catholic Church is true, I kinda learned from a Catholic apologetics (which means to explain, not be sorry about) viewpoint. Frankly, I'd rather talk about Mary.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Rape is rape. Besides, isn't homosexuality a horrible sin anyway? So, horrible sin AND a felony. Nice combo.<< Homosexuality is not a sin, homosexual activity is. There's a distinction to be made. All crimes are sins because they are a violation of the law of the proper civil authorities. Some sins are not crimes because they violate the moral law. It is a crime for an adult to have sex with a minor, whether that minor says yes or no and whether or not that minor is pre- or post-pubescent. Church teaching also confirms that "homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity" and that the acts are "intrinsically disordered." Also, it further scandalizes the victim and turns them away from God, causing terrible damage that person's psyche and soul. Believe me, it is not something the Church takes lightly, I honestly believe that the bishops where this has been happening were either weak are at a total loss of what to do in these cases. Think about it for a moment, who is going to want to come out at a press conference and tell the world that Father McFeelpants over at your parish was diddling kids in the sacristy? The Church wanted to handle this quietly and within the family to avoid scandalizing more people. Frankly, if I were these men's confessor, I'd make their absolution contingent upon turning themselves in for trial and punishment. What I wouldn't do is make it a big press event. That would be bad for everyone involved, including the victim.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>But absolutely, if all sins are the same you might as well get "charged" with premarital sex rather than not going to Church each week. Just don't forget to confess! << Confession without contrition is meaningless. Some things are funny, but I don't think sin is ever funny.
Originally Posted By Mr X Of course they want to handle it quietly, it's a scandal that could destroy the church and take away all their power.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>I don't think sin is ever funny<< I'm stunned. I thought you'd be rolling in the aisles. It was a way to lighten up a topic which was getting too serious, not an actual plan to go forth and commit sin.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Still and all, I'd say that sounds a lot more like finding a loophole... Not to mention it would mean the church was taking the law into its own hands.<< YEP! She would and it's within her rights to do so as the agency of a sovereign country. She doesn't, though because it's not prudent. >>And how could they prevent a priest in cloister or whatever from simply running away? Do they physically constrain them (if so, that in itself sounds like a crime!)?<< Actually, those in cloister choose to be there. There would be conditions to the cloister that I would require such as a signed statement that if they leave, they would be subject to an automatic excommunication that can only be lifted by the pope, they would automatically be laicizied, and they would no longer have the option or returning to cloister and their identity and the charges would be turned over to the authorities for them to be prosecuted and tried in the civil court. This kind of thing would require some sort of concordat with the civil authorities to make it legal. My purpose would be to prevent scandal. I would also want to make sure that the victims are well taken care of. I don't think monetary buy-offs are NOT the answer. After the whole Michael Jackson thing, I'm surprised some sick people didn't create situations where their kids could be put in danger so they can hit the lotto. Good, competent therapy and other kinds of assistance is what the Church can and should supply in order to help these victims. Empoverishing whole dioceses only hurts those who have dont nothing wrong, like the more than 96% of priests who had nothing to do with the crimes as well as the rest of the laity.
Originally Posted By DlandJB <<the Exsultet (Easter Proclamation made at every Easter Vigil Mass),>> This is kind of what I meant by leaving the language behind that isn't accessible to everyone. It makes Catholicism look almost cult-like - special language required. (and I don't think it is a cult, but I think you have a prideful attitude sometimes about flaunting what you know). <<Seriously, though, because of that, we have this inborn tendency to not only fear God but avoid Him. He loves us still and provides means for us to come to Him.>> Here I totally disagree with you. I think our inborn tendency is to search for God...to try and fill an empty void we perceive in our lives when we don't put God in it. Because of sin, we are separated from God, but are you suggesting we feel better when we sin? Most people would disagree. Where does conscience come from? Certainly there are people that are so far away from God that they don't give a hoot if they are hurting others or themselves, but I don't think that is true for most...I don't think we are wired like that.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Of course they want to handle it quietly, it's a scandal that could destroy the church and take away all their power.<< Nothing can destroy the Church because it is a divinely protected insitution. These scandals are VERY limited in scope. The Church's power is in her teaching authority and in the 1,000,000,000 plus Catholics around the world, most of whom are faithful to the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Churc). What it can do is severly harm the Church and those who are innocent within the Church. Now who, I wonder, has that goal in mind?
