is there an unforgivable sin?

-- janeiro (janeiro_a@rocketmail.com), March 30, 2004

Answers

Response to unfogivable sin

bump!

-- janeiro (janeiro_a@rocketmail.com), March 30, 2004.

Response to unfogivable sin

I heard that it is the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It's in Mk 3:28-29. I've heard some explain this as the sin of self- condemnation in which you deny the mercy of God and His free invitation to repent and forgiveness. As such, you have basically doomed yourself to hell. Just what I've heard.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 30, 2004.

Response to unfogivable sin

Any sin that is repented is forgiven. However, the Holy Spirit is the source of the grace of repentance. Therefore "blaspheming the Holy Spirit", which means total rejection of the influence of the Holy Spirit in one's life, is unforgivable not because it is more evil than other sinful acts, but because by its nature it makes repentance impossible.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 30, 2004.

Response to unfogivable sin

That makes sense Paul. Thanks for clearing that up.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 30, 2004.

Back in Catholic school, we were tood that there was a sin that only a bishop could absolve and another that required the Pope. If you claimed that your confessor had used your confesson to coerce you to have sex- only a bishop could absolve you.

The brother (Holy Cross) said there was another sin he wouldn't even tell us about that required the pope to absolve. Logic follows that if you went to the bishop for absolution (for a false claim that the confessor extorted sex), and then you made a false claim that the bishop extorted sex, then you'll have to go see the pope.

But then, they told us a lot of goofy crap back then

Bob Hennessy

-- Bob Hennessy (bobhenn@hotmail.com), March 31, 2004.

actually, the charge that a person who has been wrongfully molested by a priest stands that the person should go to see the bishop. That practice was in place from the 60's until early this millenium, when it was replaced with the new standard for priests found to be molesting people.

The discipline was that if a priest used the confessional to solicit sex, the member who was the victim was REQUIRED to report it to the bishop or else to be guilty of the sin of scandal by failure to disclose a wolf roaming among the flock. Same would go if the bishop did the same thing, although it is more likely that the bishop would meet with you with several other people present in order to properly record the facts.

This was NOT a confession. If you WRONGFULLY accused your priest of having molested you, you could make confession to another priest and make reparations for the damage you had done (although im not sure how seriously God could take you after having wrongfully hurt one of His shepards, but thats the point of mercy). This was a strict requirement to meet with the bishop to declare the situation so that it could be known.

What went wrong with this policy? Nobody followed it seriously. Some that did got priests removed. Some corrupt bishops simply moved priests around and settled things quietly. the majority of cases never bothered to speak up until YEARS later (sometimes decades), these people now blame the church, when they never did anything to help the situation. They are guilty by sin of association of every molestation which occurred beyond theirs for having failed to look out for their fellow church members.

why would that work that way (sin by not coming forward): lets say a woman is battered by her husband. Several times he threatens to kill her, and he has put her in the hospital several times as well. She manages to get away, but never tells the police how dangerous he is. after she gets away, he starts seeing a young girl. Three weeks later she is found beaten to death. The original woman knew how dangerous he was, and knew that he would become violent again, yet stood aside and allowed events to transpire such that he could kill. Not the best action in my case, and not a strong case if she wants to claim that she now has the best interest of all in mind.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 31, 2004.