www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Young People

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

You are quite right.

St Thomas Aquinas did in fact categorize sexual sins according to their approximation to "nature."

Thus, he saw masturbation as worse than heterosexual sins, even adultery, since he understood it as being against nature.

Also, "mortal" sin is always something whose gravity God judges and is modified by context (Why is it that when I hang out with you on the internet I start undergoing a Latin metamorphosis? ).

As Aquinas discussed, it involves things like the use of our full, free will in a grave matter with deliberate intent etc.

Alex

Are you saying it is within the context of God's design of sexuality to have heterosexual acts outside of marriage? Does God's design allow for children with no father?

Heterosexual acts outside of marriage means illegitimacy (or abortion or contraception). God is called Father. How can you lightly dismiss a corruption of the meaning of Father?

I cannot agree that a fertile sexual act where their is no committment to the mother or the offspring is better than a sterile sexual act.

Oy vey.

"Sin" is something that humans "do". Despite the mental machinations of theologians in the eras prior to TV, discussing "sin" in the abstract just doesn't cut it. Sin is inextricably tied up with a person, and - as any good confessor or spiritual director will tell you - one needs to assess the entire person before one can give any kind of guidance or absolution. In attempting to quantify sin, one has to assign badness indicia in order to be able to 'rank-order' the sin, i.e., if one were delirious from fever and did X, it wouldn't be so bad as doing the same thing without the fever. But what if one was voluntarily drunk, and did X, then is that worse, equal to, or less-worse than being delirious. One can easily see where this type of mental gymnastics would lead. (But, to be fair, there are some who just love this sort of stuff. I'm waiting for the appearance of their textbook: "The Calculus of Evil: Putting sins in their places"


This quote completely baffles me: "Homosexual acts are probably worse than heterosexual acts outside of the context of marriage because they go against God's design of sexuality."

Hunh? Where did that little calculus come from?

"Are you saying it is within the context of God's design of sexuality to have heterosexual acts outside of marriage?"

The answer is "yes", because if one defines as "marriage" ONLY sacramental marriage, then those billions of replicating Chinese aren't real and just figments of one's imagination.

"Does God's design allow for children with no father?" I'd like to think not, but if one is being rigorous in theological method, is there anything outside of inductive reasoning to back this statement up?


"Heterosexual acts outside of marriage means [sic] illegitimacy (or abortion or contraception). God is called Father. How can you lightly dismiss a corruption of the meaning of Father?"

The logic of this completely escapes me. Yes, God is called "Father". God is also called "Son". And also "Holy Spirit".

"I cannot agree that a fertile sexual act where their [sic] is no committment to the mother or the offspring is better than a sterile sexual act."

This is probably the epitome of the point I was trying to make: discussion of these issues in the abstract, without reference to persons involved, is just theological "castles in Spain". One can argue from now until dooms-day about which is better or worse, but in the end there can be no "true" answer to any question of this sort unless and until it is connected to a real live person. It reminds me very much of the adolescent argument pattern: "can not"...."can too"....."can not"......"can too"...."can not"....."can too".

It's a good thing that the Holy Spirit doesn't pack heat; or we'd all be in trouble.

Blessings!

Mor Ephrem,

I agree with you. It would seem to me that some mortal sins are worse than other mortal sins, but I'm still bound to believe that when it comes down to it they are the same. All mortal sins can send one to Hell; that's what makes them mortal sins.

This is all based on RC understanding of sin, though (I think!). Y'all Easterners don't divide sin into two clear-cut categories, right? Which makes sense to me.

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is hugely sinful, as are homosexual acts. Let's just keep it at that; I hope we can all agree to this!

Logos Teen

Here's a real situation. A de-frocked RC priest continued to "function" as a priest and performed several weddings for practicing RCs. After several years and several children, the couple learned that the "priest" was not legit. Question: did they commit mortal sin whenever they had marital relations, and are their children "bastards" in the basic meaning of the word?

Then a hypothetical: a non-legit Orthodox priest did the same thing - functioning as a priest and performing marriages for practicing Orthodox couples. Did they commit mortal sin whenever they had marital relations, and are their children "bastards" in the basic meaning of the word?

Let the fur fly. (Hey, I'm an educator - we do stuff like this. It makes folks learn - we hope.)

Blessings! (And a continued good fast to all.)

The number of Catholics killed for their faith comes from the Vatican, which issues an annual report. For gay people, if you total American Police reports and Amnesty International's reports (both of which are incomplete by their own admission) the Vatican's number has already been exceeded.

Axios

Are you saying it is within the context of God's design of sexuality to have heterosexual acts outside of marriage? Does God's design allow for children with no father?

I am not saying that God's design for human sexuality allows for this. My original comparison was between homosexual sins and heterosexual sins. At issue in my remarks was which of the two comes closer to God's design. Obviously, both "miss the mark", but I don't think it is such a hard thing to see that homosexual sins are a greater distortion of God's design because God seems to have made it so that it is one man and one woman. Insofar as homosexual sins distort this, they are farther "out there", and so I would think that, hierarchically, they'd be worse.

Heterosexual acts outside of marriage means illegitimacy (or abortion or contraception). God is called Father. How can you lightly dismiss a corruption of the meaning of Father?

I cannot agree that a fertile sexual act where their is no committment to the mother or the offspring is better than a sterile sexual act.

I am not lightly dismissing anything; I am simply thinking aloud, and I never said that mine was the definitive answer (I am no Pope).

If we were to approach these questions from the broader and more complete perspective on sexuality, which is what I think you are doing (and it's a good thing), then I could see your point, although I still tend to disagree on some of the particulars of your argument.

It would seem to me that some mortal sins are worse than other mortal sins, but I'm still bound to believe that when it comes down to it they are the same. All mortal sins can send one to Hell; that's what makes them mortal sins.

In one sense, yes, they are the same, because they have the same effects. But I think, even if you approach this from the RC POV, you would probably agree that missing Mass intentionally on a Sunday or other Holy Day of Obligation is better than, say, rape.

A de-frocked RC priest continued to "function" as a priest and performed several weddings for practicing RCs. After several years and several children, the couple learned that the "priest" was not legit. Question: did they commit mortal sin whenever they had marital relations, and are their children "bastards" in the basic meaning of the word?

No, they did not commit mortal sin (it's all about intent, full knowledge, etc., no?). As for the children being "bastards" in the basic meaning of the word, I suppose they would be, although the reality of the situation would be quite different, and I think anyone who is that much of a rigorist probably has some issues they need to deal with (and, lest this be taken the wrong way, I am not directly addressing anyone in particular).

Of course, because RCism teaches that it is the couple that marries each other, and the priest simply witnesses that for the Church, the issue is not quite the same as with the hypothetical Orthodox situation, which would probably be more clearly along the lines of the above, I think. In the RC case, it is possible, if I'm not mistaken, that a sacramental marriage could've taken place, even if the priest was defrocked and thus didn't have the authority to represent the Church.

Mor Ephrem is great. He made exactly the differentiation that I hoped would be made.

For RCs, the parties are the marrying authority. So, they are "probably" married even if the witnessing "priest" wasn't one. For Orthodox, the priest is an integral part of the union and the absence of a legitimate and canonical one would raise serious issues about the marriage.

However, the key point I wanted to make is this: it is the consciences and knowledge of the people that is more "key" or crucial to their spiritual status. Sin is "personal". One cannot sin unless one is fully informed about the gravity of a situation and then makes a conscious decision to take the path of evil. Sin is deliberately choosing the evil path.

If one does not know that something is evil, or one does not consent to the evil, it is not a sin. Defective? Sure. But sin? No. This is the "confessional" guidance that the Church has always given to her confessors. This is why the priest is obligated to make inquiries of the penitent and why our Eastern practice of "spiritual director/confessor" is absolutely critical and superior (couldn't resist!!) to the prevalent Western idea of just confessing "sins" and asking for absolution.

It's the person's spiritual life that is critical.

Blessings! (And fortitude in the remaining days of the Great Lent.)