Is streaking forbidden by the church? Is it a grave sin or a venial sin? If it is, doesn’t that make changing in the locker room and such a sin?
I doubt that streaking would be considered any more of a sin than any other display of terminal stupidity. The RCC does not object to the display of the human body, they object to doing things that will encourage lust outside of marriage. Streaking, by its furtive nature and brief “exposure” is intended to shock, not titillate, so it hardly falls into any discussion of sexual sin.
If someone managed to find a way to offend God more than their mother with such a silly stunt, it would surely fall into the “venial” category (although the RCC does not spend much time dividing mortal and venial sins, these days, anyway).
So, YOU’RE the guy with the running naked nun fetish I’ve been hearing about…
Mark 14:51-52 - And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Tradition holds that the scriptural streaker was Mark himself, so streaking is clearly not only not sinful, but leads to sainthood.
Can you elaborate a bit more on this? Do you mean they are just leaving it up to the believers to decide, or is it more of a phasing out the difference between sins? If it is the latter, then what does that mean toward the idea of purgatory and hell?
At first I thought this said…
Now I GUARANTEE that would be frowned upon by the church.
The concept represented by the ideas of mortal (deadly) and venial are still a part of RCC theology. A mortal sin (now usually called a grave sin) is one in which the sinner turns so completely from God that they have chosen damnation, while other sins are indications that a person has failed to live up to the Christian ideal.
The problem is that the issue got extremely legalistic–often missing the point in silly hair-splitting. At the height of the legalism, there were books published (not teachings of the Church, but attempts to comment on the teachings) that tried to explain how long a couple might kiss before that expression of affection began to turn to lust, becoming a venial sin, and how much longer they might kiss (or what urges they might feel) before it turned into a mortal sin.
This was all done with good intentions of letting people “know where they stood,” but it had become so legalistic that it was treated by many people as a joke (and probably rightly so).
The RCC still teaches that one may turn completely from God in a grave sin (the old mortal sin) and one may fall short of the call of Jesus (the old venial sin, usually just called sin, now).
For a really quick overview of sin/Purgatory/the RCC, etc., check out my post of 08/01/00 9:35PM on this thread What’s the Catholic Church’s position on this?. (I do not have a nihil obstat for that post, although I believe I am within the ballpark for current RCC theology.)
Beleive me seeing me naked does not encourage lust of any type.
Alright I not have god express permission to run around naked. Watch out world here I come.
Streaker, repant! Your end is in sight.