From: v5875bza@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Sin (was Re: sex)
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:12:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92Oct6.185440edt.9085@rock.db.toronto.edu>, jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes...
>v5875bza@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct01.131949.37501@watson.ibm.com>, dmczap@wookie.cambridge.ibm.com writes...

>It is God's business, not ours, to decide the culpability
>of someone who does something wrong, and no human being, whether clergy or
>lay, has the right to tell someone that something is ever "okay" for them when 
>God has said it is wrong for everybody!

I'm sure I've never seen this argument before.  Well done!  When
God says, "Judgement is mine", he doesn't mean only "Condemnation is
mine".  Judgement has two sides--you're good, or you're bad--and _both_
are reserved for God.

>>  How do we draw the line between being
>>forgiving and open, on the one hand, and overly tolerant, on the other?
> 
>How about zero tolerance for sin, loving forgiveness and help for the sinner?
>Note that forgiveness implies recognition (not denial!) of the sin and its 
>seriousness. If we recognize that somebody has a particular problem with 
>some sin, our duty is to make a special effort to help them to avoid it,
>not to tell them that it's okay. If we really believe sin is a bad thing, 
>it is an act of hatred, not of love, to encourage someone to stop struggling
>with it. 

Of course this is correct.  But let me put my question a little more
clearly.  First, how  i n  p r a c t i c a l  terms do we challenge
people?  Some friends I have are committed Catholics, and I could sit
them down and say, "Listen, this is painful, but you're doing what's
wrong," and they will listen.  But many Catholics (so I contend) don't
give a fig for Church teachings, especially on sex.  Convincing them
would be as hard as convincing the most secular person around.
John, you spoke of helping them to stop struggling.  My point is that
they aren't struggling!  They easily and with a clear conscience do
what's wrong.  I'd say, for example, that for many Catholics, deciding
whether or not to use condoms is about as difficult as deciding which
kind of oil filter to use--there are questions of effectiveness and
of price, but there is no moral issue involved, on their view.
Same with fornication:  no struggle, no issue.  If this is so, then
what love here requires is not to help them stop struggling, but to 
help them start struggling.  To make them uncomfortable and even
(in the short run) unhappy.  Now, suppose that in a Pre-Cana course
(my wife and I teach in Pre-Cana courses) I manage to convince
one member of an engaged couple that their fornicating is wrong, but
the other still thinks it's fine.  This could cause a breakup!  I'm
really playing with fire, no?

In practical terms, then, this is touchy.  It's extra touchy
when people aren't used to be morally challenged, when they think it
is their right to choose their values and so on.  It's extra extra
touchy when they think there are few moral issues in sex other
than the clear justice issues.  How would you feel if someone told you
that Crest was immoral, but using baking soda with distilled water
was OK?  And then gave two arguments:  (a) the pope says so, and
(b) Crest is unnatural.  How far would they get?--my money says
you wouldn't even listen.  And that's how deaf these people are.

BTW, I agree with Anne-Marie Gorman that it's not really their
fault they're deaf.  Bad upbringing, bad education.

Michael G.
SUNY Buffalo
Philosophy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic