jump to navigation

“The distinction between sin and sinner no longer works” October 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

“The distinction between sin and sinner no longer works.”  Such was the statement the ever-useful (to the modernists) Fr. Tom Rosica chose to highlight at the mid-day synodal press conference today.  Of course, the modernists having become even more cagey and unscrupulous since the 60s, they now consider it wise to not attach names to any of the particular interventions, so we don’t know which boneheaded prelate made this atrocious comment.  I suppose it doesn’t matter, but I think it where possible we need to start publicly castigating those prelates who openly hold heretical viewpoints.  A bit more from Hilary White:

At the midday press conference organized by the Vatican press office, Father Thomas Rosica emphasized this statement made ​​by a Synodal Father during Saturday’s discussion on the third part of the Instrumentum laboris (while the second part is being examined by circuli minores since Monday morning):

“The distinction between sin and sinner no longer works. ” 

This sentence had already been highlighted by the rapporteur in Italian which brought in substance: The differentiation between sin and sinner no longer works because sexuality is an integral part of the person.

Father Rosica added: “We must express these things in a new way so that people can understand them. “

The distinction between the person and the act is indeed a classic theology and Catholic morality; we are invited to “love the person and hate the sin.”

It is a distinction increasingly challenged because to hate sin is tantamount to stigmatizing those who commit it, not to say that homosexual act according to their “nature” as explained Mgr. Charamska.

I’m going to attack this on two levels.  First, once again, we see a bald, totally unsupported assertion from the modernists that human beings/society are simply SOOO different today that the “old rules” or old beliefs can no longer work.  Of course, this is balderdash, and what they really mean is, they don’t like the old beliefs, 2/3 of them are sinning against them constantly and unrepentantly, and they want them changed for those reasons.  Look at the asinine reasoning above: what year did sexuality suddenly become an “integral part of the person,” so that the “old rules” stopped applying? Was in 1991?  2005?  1273?

Of course, it’s always been an integral part of the person, but that has also made absolutely no difference, because sin remains sin.  This is just a particularly thin cover to justify the unjustifiable, to pretend that sin, somehow, is not.  And by the language, I am certain whichever bishop made this quote was referring to sodomy, because only sodomy gets identified these days as being so “integral” and “unchangeable.”

But speaking a bit more broadly, they have a point.  I’ve always had a bit of a problem with “love the sinner, hate the sin” because in many types of sin, the sinner winds up becoming the sin.  That is to say, a bandit so far gone into a life of banditry, murder, theft, rapine, etc., and committed so many heinous crimes, that while we may love his eternal soul and hope for his conversion, we basically hate his entire mode of life/conduct, and rightly so.

My problem with “love the sin/hate the sinner” is that I have often seen it form a sort of excuse system for those lost in grave sin. Maybe excuse system is too hard, maybe a ring of rationalization is better, but the end point has been – both in the sects and in the Church – a systematic softening of attitudes towards sin and even more, those who perform sin routinely and without remorse.  This applies especially to the dominant sexual sins of our times but we see it in other areas, too.  This mentality also ties in with some of the all-pervasive thinking of the progressive overculture, which publicly hates a few sins (ostensible greed, lack of charity, etc) while excusing others.  I don’t think the vast majority of people who are plugged into the overculture through the media/entertainment complex have any idea how influenced they are by it.  This is, after all, the vehicle by which about 1/3 of the American populace came to find two men ripping each other’s bodies apart in sodomy to be the “equivalent” of marriage.  A lot of well-meaning Christians have taken “love the sinner, hate the sin” into something very close to “never, ever, ever judge anyone’s conduct.”

And then there is this, and it’s something noticed by a good number of Saints and Fathers: there is such a thing as a reprobate sense.  A person can become so lost in sin as to, in a very real sense, become the sin. I’d say that was certainly the case with me when I was in active addiction. One of the poor lost souls Joseph Sciambra encounters at the Folsom St Fair is probably as close to becoming “sodomy” as one can imagine.  Yes they remain a child of God redeemable by Grace – anyone is! – but so long as they remain so esconced in that lifestyle, the distinction between “sinner” and “sin” becomes academic, at best.  That’s why “loving the sinner” historically mean praying for them above all, but also counseling, even chastising them over their sin.

But that is precisely where I think the “love the sinner, hate the sin” mentality winds up, far too often: endlessly excusing abhorrent behavior and pretending souls are not to be held accountable for their actions.  Of course they are, and by a far more perfectly just Judge than us.

So, surprisingly, I actually agree a bit with the surely progressive prelate who is quoted above, but for the very opposite reasons.  “Love the sinner, hate the sin” has too often transformed into “love the sinner, deny the sin exists” and this has been a major means by which progressives/modernists in the Church and out have managed to weaken the Christian moral ethos that once suffused society.  What they’ve done is to convince people that it is impermissible to hold people to account for their bad actions.  They’ve also managed to get people to lose sight of the fact that leaving someone mired in sin by refusing to hold their person to account for their serious sins is the worst kind of hatred one could have.  And that’s what the Saints of old understood, it is absolutely critical for society to have standards and to have some non-judicial forms of behavioral control to use with people for some of the most common sins, FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.  But that kind of thinking went out the window, depending on the sin, decades to centuries ago.

 

 

 

Comments

1. Joseph D'Hippolito - October 12, 2015

Let’s face facts.

First, most Catholic leaders do not take Scripture seriously. I realize that’s a stereotype promoted by fundamentalist Protestants but Rosica’s statements reflect that lack of regard. Jesus had the perfect rejoinder to such talk: “Go and sin no more.”

One also could argue that JPII’s arbitrary, abolitionist revisionism of the Catholic approach to capital punishment also reflects such lack of regard.

The Catholic prelates prefer to embrace intellectual fashion over divine revelation, as JPII’s embrace of von Balthazar also attests.

Second, why do you think some prelates are so gung ho about homosexuality? Why do you think Daneels is playing a prominent role in this synod? A substantial number of priests and prelates would love to remove the stigma from man-boy sex, which has been going on in the Church at least since St. Peter Damian and “Liber Gomorrahianus.” Removing that stigma also would protect the Church’s extensive financial holdings from lawsuits.

Francis must be aware of Daneels’ immorality. If Francis truly cared about the integrity of God’s name (let alone about protecting boys entrusted to priests), he would have had Daneels defrocked. But Canon Law is nothing but a cover to protect the caste of ecclesiastics, who benefit the most from Catholicism.

2. James Kevin Richardson - October 12, 2015

Perhaps it is necessary to look at this a bit sideways. Love the sinner, hate the sin places the man (woman) at the center of the discussion. As you rightly note, a man may seem to become little more than his collection of sins. A man’s attachment to his sins can become all encompassing, but we’re still focusing on a brother as if he were no more than the sins he still commits. Ultimately, however, it becomes necessary to get back to the idea of having what separates men from our God; sin. A man is not his sin. The sin has no claim on the Love of God.

3. richardmalcolm1564 - October 12, 2015

The real problem for churchmen like Fr. Rosica is that they no longer even believe in sin – unless it is a social sin, of course.

Tantumblogo - October 12, 2015

Oh no, he directed people to Confession for the “sin” of resisting him to his face (via twitter). There’s even a hashtag now for his blocking of scores of faithful Catholics – #Rosicablockparty.

In perfect hypocrisy, modernists suddenly become rigorists towards those who have the temerity to oppose their schemes. This has been the case for decades now.

4. Boniface - October 13, 2015

Maybe we should just go back to the words of Scripture then, Fr. Rosica:

“”To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike.” Wisdom 14:9

If he does not like “Love the sinner hate the sin”, perhaps he likes this better?

5. tg - October 13, 2015

Good post.

6. Margaret Costello - October 18, 2015

Agree with you…the term has led to the emo go along, get along culture we live in now. Hard to detach sin from sinner when the sodomites actually identify themselves with their sin. Disagree that people in that horrid Folsom Street fair remain a child of God…they become children of the devil per Scripture/Our Lord’s own words by committing such grave acts. But the opportunity to reclaim that child status is always there:+) God bless~


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: