ACCUSING PEOPLE OF MORTAL SIN IS DIRECTING HATE AT "SINNERS"
IMMORALITY AND SIN ARE NOT THE SAME
Some people cause such great suffering that we condemn them for the harm they
have done and have little or no concern for their actual intentions. It is
possible for a person to intend to do a little evil while causing huge evil. For
example, the person who thinks that if gay people are murdered God will let them
into Heaven and will send them to Hell forever if they are not is not intending
grave evil by doing grave evil. It is what the person does not what they intend
that we look at. Therefore the person who says they love the sinner and hate the
sin is lying.
Some say that Jesus though he hated sin saw some good in tax collectors and
prostitutes. In fact, he only saw in them a power to turn to God. This power
does not make them good or mean there is good in them. In fact, they were bad
for they were not using it.
Catholic teaching says that Hell is not punishment by God but created by people
who refuse to be with God. They die estranged and keep it up forever.
The Church says a saint who sins gravely and then suddenly dies after 100 years
of holiness still should go to everlasting punishment in Hell for his sin was so
malicious and inexcusable. But in the law of the land and the law of humanity,
if somebody does wrong you consider their previous good character and show
mercy. The Church is taking a very vicious and inhuman stance. But it is forced
to by Jesus' insane doctrine of everlasting Hell.
It is clear that even if cohabiting is a grave sin, that very few if anybody who
commits it would be intending to sin gravely. Hardly anybody really intends to
reject God forever by their sin. If we did, we would display no good qualities
at all if we sin.
Plus if cohabitation is a sin, God holds that it is between you and your
partner. God knows to mind his own business.
In short, nobody has the right to judge a cohabiting person as unfit for
communion. To say that it is not about punishing them but making it clear that
they are out of line with Church teaching is still implying that they are
harmful even if unwittingly. It is still judgemental. Are we to think it is
better to exclude a person over their views than over their morals? Certainly
not!
Belief in good and bad is not the same as belief in holiness and sin. You can
intend to do bad without intending to act immorally. Immoral means you are
breaking a law and deserving and demanding blame and punishment. Being bad means
you simply doing harm but you judge it in practical terms not moral terms. If an
atheist does not believe in free will but that we are all programmed by deep
inner forces she will see bad not as immoral or forbidden but defective. It is
not about morality for she does not care about rewards or punishments or believe
in them. A person can only sin - if sin is possible - in so far as they have
moral knowledge that the act is wrong. Nobody can have full moral knowledge
therefore nobody can sin mortally or intend to sever his relationship with God
in full. You cannot blame a person for their sinful actions unless they could
have done otherwise and unless they knew the moral qualities of their actions.
If we are to love ourselves as sinners and hate our sins we simply cannot impute
blame to ourselves but to our sins. Thus we cannot become really immoral. We can
never reject God for all eternity.
A person who does good for his sake or that of his beloved family is considered
selfish. The person who does good for its own sake instead of limiting it like
that is considered unselfish. While it is considered holy to do good for
yourself for its own sake it is considered sinful to do good for yourself for
your own sake! In reality, both persons are good and it is just that one is less
good than the other. It is not right to demonise anybody as non-good or evil or
sinful.
In the name of tolerance, the Church needs to start saying that mortal sinners
are virtually non-existent. The teaching of love the sinner and hate the sin
needs to be changed to love the sinner and work against the sin in love. Hate is
too strong for something that is not that intentionally bad. No personal sin can
be meant to be bad enough to deserve hate. If the sinner unwittingly hurts
himself by sin then it is pity he needs. Hating a sinner means that you judge
them harshly - you can't claim to love the sinner then.
If we should hate the sin it follows that we must hate the sinner because sin
does not change you as a person ever. What it does is reveal who and what you
really are. To hate the sin is to hate the sinner.
Hating immorality is not the same as hating sinfulness. Hating immorality is
hating a person for breaking a moral code. Hating sinfulness is the same except
it is thought that the moral code comes from God. As God by definition deserves
more respect than man and man's morals sinfulness is worse than immorality. Any
belief that causes you to oppose evil far more than you need to is making you
hate. If you can hate the immorality but love the immoral that does not mean you
can hate the sin and love the sinner. Quite the contrary!
If the Church ever teaches that mortal sin is hard or near impossible, it
follows that it gives up any right to ban remarried divorcees or
pro-abortionists or heretics or schismatics or Protestants or anybody at all who
is baptised from communion. The day it signs that doctrine into part of the
Catholic faith is the day it signs the death-warrant of the Church. Fraudulent
visionaries will become more numerous than they are now for the fear that it's a
mortal sin to pretend to be having visions will vanish.
The state may decree conscience clauses. An example is how a Christian school
may teach that it is a sin to be gay and be legally exempted from having to
employ an exceptionally and remarkably good teacher and allowed to discriminate
to choose a straight teacher. Another example is how a Muslim cannot be forced
to deal with pork when working as a retail assistant. The clauses will only be
created if it is established that the person or entity feels an action required
by law is not just wrong but very very wrong. It is intolerable. However, if
religion starts to say that there is no such thing as a really bad sin then it
loses any right to demand a conscience clause from the state. It loses any right
to encourage or permit or accept its members picketing and shouting outside
abortion clinics and harassing people going in. Paradoxically, there is more
tolerance in NOT granting the clauses if people take their moral dictates less
seriously!
If the Church teaches that abortion and murder etc are venial sins - sins that
are serious but not bad enough to drive God out of your heart - that is enough
supposing the doctrine of sin really has any intrinsic value for us. I mean we
should avoid sin if it is bad just because it is bad and not because of how
serious or not serious it is. What is the use of condemning them as mortal? The
Church may say, "But we have to for that is what they are! We cannot dilute the
truth!" The Church means they are so serious that if the person commits them
with full freedom and knowledge of their seriousness then they are subjectively
and objectively mortal sins. If the person does not do them with full freedom
then they are objectively mortal sins but they are not personally mortal sins.
It is a person doing grave wrong without intending to. Strange that they don't
teach that you can (and they deny that you can) get a reward from God by
committing the sin of abortion for the right reasons without knowing it is a
sin! They hate the sin with the sinner and won't admit it. Condemning sin more
than you need to instead of kindly assuming that nobody intends to be very bad
when they do wrong is hate of the sinner. The attraction this attitude holds for
the religious people is that they can feel superior to those who seem to sin
seriously.
It is interesting though how if a priest challenges the doctrines forbidding
abortion and same sex marriage and papal authority he will be silenced or even
dismissed. It seems unfair while the teaching on mortal sin is questioned by
priests without any repercussions.