Cardinal Marx says anti-gay discrimination, not same sex marriage, is defeat for Church

[NewLove]

The one is about church discipline and the other is about offending God.
The former is under the sin of disobedience and must be willed in order to even be a sin whereby homosexual acts are gravely disordered and a grave sin in and of itself.

Homosexuality in practice is a sin that people in and of themselves are to recognize even without the bible.
Its revealed to us by the general or ordinary revelation as reffered to as natural theology by Thomas Aquinas.
Of course it's easy for a to spot several scriptural passages where its adressed too.
So its kind of a double whammy.

The friday abstinence is different, it's not something man could know about God and his will by living and observing nature.
It's described as special revelation.

So, what's the difference?
Well the one thing is a mortal offence in and of itself and are so in any culture at any time in history whereby the other must be willed and committed by a person who not only know about the practice, but also decide to blow it of.

Needless to say most Catholics who fail to observe the discipline do so out of forgetfulness and so they don't fall into sin, well except venial sin that is.

The one act is ALLWAYS sinful the other isn't necessarily so.

So? Damnation is damnation. Souls who neglected their Friday responsibility and find themselves in hell are in hell. They are not likely saying "well, at least my sin wasn't like those gay people's."

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

So? Damnation is damnation. Souls who neglected their Friday responsibility and find themselves in hell are in hell. They are not likely saying "well, at least my sin wasn't like those gay people's."

You don't distinguish between the two?
The one ALWAYS lead to spiritual death, the other rarely does, but has the potential.

 

[bill5]

It is both possible and necessary to acknowledge and publicly repent for the wrongs the Church and its people have done

Hardly.

 

[bill5]

PS what's the bit about meat on Fridays outside of Lent? Did I miss a memo? Last I heard that was perfectly acceptable.

 

[Michie]

It is but you are supposed to do an act of peace or charity when you eat meat on Fridays.

PS what's the bit about meat on Fridays outside of Lent? Did I miss a memo? Last I heard that was perfectly acceptable.

 

[NewLove]

You don't distinguish between the two?
The one ALWAYS lead to spiritual death, the other rarely does, but has the potential.

How so? In both cases people who know the rule and willfully break it are guilty of a grave sin. I dare speculate that neglecting one's additional Friday penitential act and eating meat is more common for North American Catholics than homosexual activity is. If homosexuals make up 10% of the population I'll assume 10% of active Catholics are homosexuals. Of them, perhaps 50% are having homosexual contact. The other half are either too young, too old, committed to chastity, in ill health, or in an opposite sex marriage and just making do. That's 5% of a Parish and I think it's pretty generous. I don't think that 95% of Catholics (who aren't already vegetarians) abstain from meat outside of Lent and/or do not neglect their additional Friday penitent act. These are guesses, I might be wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong.

How does one act always lead to spiritual death (presumably regardless of knowledge and freedom) and the other only rarely - especially in those areas where the Friday rule is relevant?

 

[bill5]

It is but you are supposed to do an act of peace or charity when you eat meat on Fridays.

I do. Every day when I drive to work I don't crash into all the morons who have absolutely no clue how to drive. That's peace AND charity.

 

[Michie]

Lol! That was supposed to be penance.

 

[bill5]

It's that too. Sure feels like it anyway.