rant...

[Jack4]

Note to Mediators of Meh: I’ve tried to keep this clean, but if you deem it necessary, feel free to delete this post.

....

It all began around three months ago.

 

I am a teen studying in a Catholic school (run by a religious order of priests). Our school conducted a camp. We had sessions of exercise; Holy Mass; Rosary procession; lectures on communication, multiple intelligences, respect and duties,etc.  

Along with these, there was also a "sex education" session. Boys and girls had been separated. Two medical doctors had been arranged for, in the same respective genders. All female teachers and parents were sent away from our room. Only a member of the office staff, a man, was the school employee here. The doctor who came to teach us had a Christian-sounding name. He had prepared a slide show, and also encouraged us to ask questions.  

As you can expect, all boys were hesitant to ask questions at first. But one boy (whom I presume to be Catholic) set aside the reluctance and asked, “Is ma****bation OK?” 

The doctor responded, “Yes, it’s okay. It is perfectly normal. It helps to relieve the stress.”

Perhaps inspired by this boy’s question, a few others also asked some questions. The overall tone of his replies were the same; his words did not reflect the purity that we are called to. 

(This happened in a Catholic school, run by Catholic priests. Majority of the audience was Catholic. The doctor was named after a saint. )
I had not been present for the sex ed class most of the time there, I had a unique situation in which I had to go to a certain place. I came to know of these events from my friends.  

Why am I saying all this now? 
In biology, we are learning a chapter on reproduction. As you can expect, we also discuss this subject among ourselves a bit (a bit too much). I discovered that one Catholic boy had the practice of ma****bating (not the boy who asked if it was ok). He said he learnt in the sex ed that it wasn’t a problem. I told him it was sinful, and that the CCC recognized it as such. It was new knowledge to him. 

I don’t know what decision he took. More importantly, I don’t know how many other souls were affected. This sin is very hard to unlearn. 
Ah well. There is little I can do about it. Worrying doesn’t help at all. 

This incidence points out to the sheer ignorance of many Catholic children.
 Let the Church work better at this; leading people to holiness, not sin; neither to promiscuity nor to despair, but to Jesus, the Way, Truth and Life. 

Anyway, I am just complaining. Thank you for indulging me. 
 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Jack4

[Nihil Obstat]

As my last priest used to say very often, sin must justify itself. That is why there is such a massive push to make mortal sins "not so bad" or "justified under the circumstances", or even try to paint them as something good.

[Peace]

43 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

As my last priest used to say very often, sin must justify itself. That is why there is such a massive push to make mortal sins "not so bad" or "justified under the circumstances", or even try to paint them as something good.

Where do you see this push? I haven't really noticed it, but maybe I am not frequenting the correct websites.

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Note to Mediators of Meh: I’ve tried to keep this clean, but if you deem it necessary, feel free to delete this post.

....

It all began around three months ago.

 

I am a teen studying in a Catholic school (run by a religious order of priests). Our school conducted a camp. We had sessions of exercise; Holy Mass; Rosary procession; lectures on communication, multiple intelligences, respect and duties,etc.  

Along with these, there was also a "sex education" session. Boys and girls had been separated. Two medical doctors had been arranged for, in the same respective genders. All female teachers and parents were sent away from our room. Only a member of the office staff, a man, was the school employee here. The doctor who came to teach us had a Christian-sounding name. He had prepared a slide show, and also encouraged us to ask questions.  

As you can expect, all boys were hesitant to ask questions at first. But one boy (whom I presume to be Catholic) set aside the reluctance and asked, “Is ma****bation OK?” 

The doctor responded, “Yes, it’s okay. It is perfectly normal. It helps to relieve the stress.”

Perhaps inspired by this boy’s question, a few others also asked some questions. The overall tone of his replies were the same; his words did not reflect the purity that we are called to. 

(This happened in a Catholic school, run by Catholic priests. Majority of the audience was Catholic. The doctor was named after a saint. )
I had not been present for the sex ed class most of the time there, I had a unique situation in which I had to go to a certain place. I came to know of these events from my friends.  

Why am I saying all this now? 
In biology, we are learning a chapter on reproduction. As you can expect, we also discuss this subject among ourselves a bit (a bit too much). I discovered that one Catholic boy had the practice of ma****bating (not the boy who asked if it was ok). He said he learnt in the sex ed that it wasn’t a problem. I told him it was sinful, and that the CCC recognized it as such. It was new knowledge to him. 

I don’t know what decision he took. More importantly, I don’t know how many other souls were affected. This sin is very hard to unlearn. 
Ah well. There is little I can do about it. Worrying doesn’t help at all. 

This incidence points out to the sheer ignorance of many Catholic children.
 Let the Church work better at this; leading people to holiness, not sin; neither to promiscuity nor to despair, but to Jesus, the Way, Truth and Life. 

Anyway, I am just complaining. Thank you for indulging me. 
 

Did you speak to one of the priests at the school about the incident?

[Nihil Obstat]

36 minutes ago, Peace said:

Where do you see this push? I haven't really noticed it, but maybe I am not frequenting the correct websites.

Did you speak to one of the priests at the school about the incident?

I see it among liberal Catholics, especially with sins like masturbation, homosexual conduct, syncretism, divorce, etc., but speaking more broadly most of the secular and modernist world does this, with different particular sins.

[truthfinder]

And then there's the push too that since we cannot not *fully* consent to sin because we do not fully *know* what truly cutting our relationship with God is like, hardly no one actually commits a mortal sin. (Which is not the definition at all).  Heard this recently at an EF and just about lost it. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, truthfinder said:

And then there's the push too that since we cannot not *fully* consent to sin because we do not fully *know* what truly cutting our relationship with God is like, hardly no one actually commits a mortal sin. (Which is not the definition at all).  Heard this recently at an EF and just about lost it. 

In the above the grave matter is acting in order to cut one's relationship with God.  No and for sure, we do not know precisely what cutting one's relationship with God is in all its aspects, which does not preclude the recognition it is grave matter indeed to desire/act to cut one's relationship with God nevertheless. 

Even if some other content of grave matter is found out later not to be grave matter at all, the fact that we thought it was and went ahead anyway, is grave matter in itself and constitutes grave matter.

Once something is known/believed to be grave matter, then one has full knowledge.  Once one then freely consents to commit grave matter, one has full knowledge and full consent and is therefore in a state of mortal sin.  In the CCC, The Church does indicate factors that might mitigate full consent - and by then going on and stating what is the "gravest" mortal sin of all, one can insight that some mortal sins are more grave than others, but still mortal sin incurring the full penalty for mortal sin.  Mortal sins must be confessed and if one is in doubt whether mortal sin or not one should speak to a priest in Confession - i.e. confess it anyway.

Insofar as I am aware, The Church has most always taught that there are three conditions for mortal sin. 

I can't see what is difficult or inaccurate about it unless it is stretched this way and that in an attempt to present it as what it is not. 

Finally, with all our human and fallible reasoning over the question under discussion, we just might find out at judgement that we were wrong.  However, even though we might be wrong, at the time we believed what we did.    There is indeed, to my mind, grave matter and full knowledge wtih full consent to constitute mortal sin and the full penalty.  Mortal sin must be confessed.

Perhaps it is my education by Dominican nuns.  St Paul tells us that to break one law, is to break them all.  I tend to think that to disbelieve one aspect of Church Teaching is to call the whole of Church Teaching into question.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

Where do you see this push? I haven't really noticed it, but maybe I am not frequenting the correct websites.

Did you speak to one of the priests at the school about the incident?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I see it among liberal Catholics, especially with sins like masturbation, homosexual conduct, syncretism, divorce, etc., but speaking more broadly most of the secular and modernist world does this, with different particular sins.

My take: Some Catholics I know do adopt the secular type of thinking.  This cannot change one iota of what The Church teaches that "masturbation, homosexual conduct, syncretism, divorce etc." all constitute grave matter.  The "slippery slope" some theologians call "full consent" is for theologians a requirement to be fully accurate in the definition.  I don't think individuals have that moral requirement in that if I fully believe I did not give full consent, that is sufficient for lack of full consent.  Best way forward would be to speak with Father in Confession whenever grave matter is present.

The problem seems to me to be that some Catholics do not comprehend that secular thought and Catholic Teaching do not have to agree necessarily - and that Catholics are called to swim against the tide of secular thought and worldly thought  - to hold to what The Church teaches against the tide if necessary and to proclaim Catholic Teaching. 

It seems to me to be a failure of catechesis in that some Catholics incorrectly really and truly believe what they do and as the rightful path The Church must follow i.e. secular reasoning.  Most families, including Catholic families, stay in touch with media and therefore media comment often largely including secular reasoning.  It is very difficult for them to stay in touch with what The Church is saying as well - their dependence is on homilies at Sunday Mass I think, or perhaps their local Catholic newspaper, although our parish does not sell many at all. 

Some Catholics even throw up their hands because The Church is too difficult to understand and do what they think is right.  There is a failure to undertake the journey to try to understand - perhaps even a failure on the part of some other(s) to accompany them on that journey.  The biggest problem to me is how to trigger a desire in another to desire to undertake the journey of understanding in the first place.

In accompanying the other, that other may begin the journey in a quite negative place - and one cannot ask nor expect that understanding and a more positive place is an overnight event.

I wonder if we are not even asking the right questions as yet, let alone coming up with any kind of answers? 

______________

Just need to qualify the following statement by me: " I don't think individuals have that moral requirement in that if I fully believe I did not give full consent, that is sufficient for lack of full consent."  The latter is not seeking to justify.    It is to truly believe that at the time I did not give full consent and why.  But as I said, because full consent can be problematic, where grave matter is concerned one does best to confess it anyway and ask Father to clarify my moral position re full consent, if I am in doubt.

[Nihil Obstat]

You seem to have an incredibly personal reaction to all discussions of mortal sin. 

[CatherineM]

I'm viewed as a liberal Catholic, but follow Church teaching on these issues. 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You seem to have an incredibly personal reaction to all discussions of mortal sin. 

[Ice_nine]

If we're honest tho, maybe this sex positivity is a reaction to or overcompensation for all the guilt and shame religion and culture (at various points) has foisted upon human sexuality.

I'm not saying the Church is wrong on her moral guidelines, but you need to be careful about how it's presented so you're not giving kids a complex. Especially for those of us prone to scrupulosity. Even as a 26 year old adult I'm still untangling what it means to be a sexual being and to be chaste, and understanding this in the context of biology and morality, which sometimes seem at odds with each other.

And it's hard to find a venue to discuss these things frankly and openly in a religious setting. It seems like the advice from the church is either "don't think about sex ever unless your married" which of course only makes people think about it more, or some lofty, ornate writings on sexuality that don't help me out much on a practical level.

I can't be the only one that feels that way.

[Guest]

I am sure you are not the only one, @Ice_nine   Sometimes discussing one's doubts or seeking clarification or similar on a Catholic discussion site (CDS) might not be a good move at all.......sometimes.  One can get totally different responses, even disagreements and yes, perhaps attempts to impose guilt trips too; possibly come away even more confused and none the wiser; not always for sure, but the risk is there.

Seeking resources in real life might be the wiser move.  I am surely blest to have a couple including my SD.  I don't think that The Church actually teaches "don't think about sex ever unless you are married".  It might be the way some things are interpreted and taken up, imposed as useless baggage on others.

I think it has been a difficult journey sorting out what is and what is not mortal sin in some instances -  especially those of us educated pre V2 days.  We had the task of sorting out too what was central and foundational to The Church and what was not.  It was a headache and a journey.........a shock to the system initially.

I think mortal sin should be an important even vital subject to understand since mortal sin alone can consign to Hell and for eternity possibly -  mortal sin can separate a person from God, The Church and Holy Communion. That to me is absolutely horrendous.  It is an extremely major subject underscored big time in my book - for both self and for others.  We need to grasp it confidently for our own benefit - and we need to be able to explain confidently and clearly as one can to others prepared to answer questions.  And if one does not have the answer, ideally knows where to get it.

[Jack4]

I shall return to this thread. For now, let me quote:

3. Yet at this point a question arises: in what does this hope consist which, as hope, is “redemption”? The essence of the answer is given in the phrase from the Letter to the Ephesians quoted above: the Ephesians, before their encounter with Christ, were without hope because they were “without God in the world”. To come to know God—the true God—means to receive hope. We who have always lived with the Christian concept of God, and have grown accustomed to it, have almost ceased to notice that we possess the hope that ensues from a real encounter with this God. The example of a saint of our time can to some degree help us understand what it means to have a real encounter with this God for the first time. I am thinking of the African Josephine Bakhita, canonized by Pope John Paul II. She was born around 1869—she herself did not know the precise date—in Darfur in Sudan. At the age of nine, she was kidnapped by slave-traders, beaten till she bled, and sold five times in the slave-markets of Sudan. Eventually she found herself working as a slave for the mother and the wife of a general, and there she was flogged every day till she bled; as a result of this she bore 144 scars throughout her life. Finally, in 1882, she was bought by an Italian merchant for the Italian consul Callisto Legnani, who returned to Italy as the Mahdists advanced. Here, after the terrifying “masters” who had owned her up to that point, Bakhita came to know a totally different kind of “master”—in Venetian dialect, which she was now learning, she used the name “paron” for the living God, the God of Jesus Christ. Up to that time she had known only masters who despised and maltreated her, or at best considered her a useful slave. Now, however, she heard that there is a “paron” above all masters, the Lord of all lords, and that this Lord is good, goodness in person. She came to know that this Lord even knew her, that he had created her—that he actually loved her. She too was loved, and by none other than the supreme “Paron”, before whom all other masters are themselves no more than lowly servants. She was known and loved and she was awaited. What is more, this master had himself accepted the destiny of being flogged and now he was waiting for her “at the Father's right hand”. Now she had “hope” —no longer simply the modest hope of finding masters who would be less cruel, but the great hope: “I am definitively loved and whatever happens to me—I am awaited by this Love. And so my life is good.” Through the knowledge of this hope she was “redeemed”, no longer a slave, but a free child of God. She understood what Paul meant when he reminded the Ephesians that previously they were without hope and without God in the world—without hope because without God. Hence, when she was about to be taken back to Sudan, Bakhita refused; she did not wish to be separated again from her “Paron”. On 9 January 1890, she was baptized and confirmed and received her first Holy Communion from the hands of the Patriarch of Venice. On 8 December 1896, in Verona, she took her vows in the Congregation of the Canossian Sisters and from that time onwards, besides her work in the sacristy and in the porter's lodge at the convent, she made several journeys round Italy in order to promote the missions: the liberation that she had received through her encounter with the God of Jesus Christ, she felt she had to extend, it had to be handed on to others, to the greatest possible number of people. The hope born in her which had “redeemed” her she could not keep to herself; this hope had to reach many, to reach everybody. 

-Spe salvi

[WhiteLily]

From what I noticed is that when people, especially priests, say something is not really bad such as sins of the flesh, when it really is, chances are is that they are doing it themselves and want to justify their actions so they don't have to confront their sins/bad habits. This is due to spiritual blindness and pride. I say this because I have witnessed this first hand. It's sad, but we need to fraternal correct them as Jesus would, love them, and pray for them.