What Kind Of Sin Would This Be?

[Dave]

Before I begin, please understand that I am NOT saying that Catholic traditionalism is a bad thing. However, I've encountered Catholic traditionalists (and I know that many are NOT like this) who, while they aren't members of the SSPX, sedevacantists, etc., nevertheless have attitudes that would make them indistinguishable from such people.

For example, they may:
-- claim that the Church erred in starting the Novus Ordo Mass (although they consider it valid) -- I'm not talking about those whose mere personal preference leads them to attend Tridentine Masses.
-- criticize Vatican II for anything and everything.
-- lambast Pope John Paul II for associating with those of other religions or for a myriad of other alleged "sins."
-- support suspended priest Fr. Nicholas Gruner in claiming that Russia was never properly consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary per Our Lady's requests at Fatima.
-- claim that there are never just reasons to use NFP and that Catholics must have as many children as humanly possible.

So my question is, is it objectively sinful for Catholics to think/do such things? Would the sin be venial or mortal?

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/14 - Third Sunday in Lent

Dave,

Good series of questions. It's difficult to deal with a few of them for various reasons. Let me deal with them singularly.

1.) It is not a sin to say the Church made a "mistake" in permitting the Novus Ordo liturgy. However, such an attitude is a dangerous and inadvisable one - it's like pointing a loaded gun at your face and saying that you're not going to pull the trigger. It's also interesting to think that one's opinion is more educated, formed and pastoral than the attitudes of hundreds of bishops, priests and scholars who have "the mind of the Church."

2.) Unfortunately, many people mistake what Vatican II [i]actually[/i] said with what people have interpreted it as saying, whether or not their interpretation could hold water. To criticize interpretations of the Council is fine, but the conciliar documents - being approved by the Holy Father - are not to be disagreed with.

3.) To malign anyone's character is a sin. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that every man has a right to his reputation unless he forfeits that right. John Paul has done nothing unbecoming of the person of the Holy Father - thus deserving a good reputation.

4.) I am unaware of this priest or his surroundings; however, it may be important to remember that Fatima, though a wonderful gift of God, is a private revelation. One can agree or disagree with it in whole or in part as one wishes and not jeopardize one's salvation. This priest, if he is suspended, [i]did[/i] something to get himself suspended, and to follow anyone into sin is to sin oneself.

5.) This is perhaps the closest of your cases to approach outright sin. For parents who do not have the material means to raise ten children it is irresponsible to have ten children. To use birth control, contraceptives, or abortafacients (sic) is outright sin and cannot be condoned. Therefore, NFP is a reliable, safe, and [i]morally upright[/i] method to responsibly control the number of children a couple produces. Keep in mind, though, that to use NFP to simply "not have kids" is just as sinful as contraceptives or birth control.

By the way, if a person's attitudes "make them indistinguishable from" sedevacanists, SSPX, SSPV, and other separatist groups, then they need to get their heads put on straight, since they're a mere half-step from forsaking the Church. Hope this helps.

Yours,
Pio Nono