 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 12:37 pm |
|
I know we have probably been through this before, but it takes me a long time to learn something new. So I will try to let this be the last time I ask.
As far as violating the 10 commandments and something being grave matter. Does it have to be a serious offense of the command or is any offense grave enough. In another post Rick, you said that there was a difference between stealung a dime from your mom or something from holding up a liquor store. Would this be the difference between grave and not grave matter?
Meaning, stealing is one of the commands and I take to be a grave matter. I would think if I stole 1,000 dollars from someone knowing it was a grave matter, giving my full deliberate consent, that it would be a mortal sin. This is clear to me.
But what about stealing a dollar from someone. What if I did it knowing it was wrong and a violation of the command and I did so with my full deliberate consent? Would this be a mortal sin since in both cases I stole something knowing I should not have with full deliberate consent?
And if it is a mortal sin in the dollar case since I did so knowing it was wrong and deliberately, what then if, I really am thinking (its just a dollar, its no big deal) is it then a mortal sin because in my mind it was not a'grave offense?'
I would think lying in court for no good reason with deliberate consent knowing it is a grave matter would be a mortal sin. But what about a little lie that you just tell that you still know is wrong and you deliberately do but is not a significant thing. Would that be a mortal sin?
So you see what I am getting at. Is it just any violation of the command or a severe gross violation of the command?
I know I have asked this, but I really want a good understanding of it and I guess I am seeing if I have it. It is my thought that the second cases I presented would not be mortal sins because they were not serious offenses.
I also struggle knowing how much the degree we are being tempted makes us less culpable of the sin. It is such an inexact science. I suppose I am glad that we have confession. Rather than being woried about it, I am realizing I just need to work on being faithful and trusting God and the church and all will be well, and not worrying about understanding every last detail. But still, I am hoping to see if I understand this.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 04:19 pm |
|
It is my thought that the second cases I presented would not be mortal sins because they were not serious offenses.
That is correct.
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 119 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:12 am |
|
Jumping in here--
(ask as many times as you need Brian--it still helps the rest of us!)
It seems that these are the black and white. When comapring a dollar to $1000 it seems easy to say one is mortal and one is venial. What about a less obvious amount or circumstance? Where is the cut off for "grave" in this case $500 $100 or $10?? I picked this example becuase money is easy to quantify but the question is really a general one--
I also remember reading or hearing (don't recall where) that factors such as who you are stealing from are considered. Does the act cause grave harm to the specific indivivdual --ie a $10 from Bill Gates vs $10 from a struggling widow (or whatever example you like)
This is somethig that is puzzling me. What if you are unsure of something being a grave matter? One could say that it really doesn't matter as you should confess either way and get the priest's advice. That doesn't help if there is no opportunity for confession prior to the next mass. Do you receive communion or not? Going into this week, most opportunities for confession are done already or will be tomorrow and yet many will attend multiple services this week. Receiving unworthily would be grave matter in my opinion but if we say wait until confession to be sure then you would miss communion many times this week or outside this week it might be a long time until you receive communion again. Technically, there could be something you are unsure of each week.You could skip communion when you didn't really have to. Of course, it seems that the grace recieved in communion would be more beneficial to the individual than waiting in those cases. It just doesn't make sense to me that there is not more guidance on this.
I understand that the catechism cannot possibly address all variations here but it seems to me that there is not enough explanation of "grave"
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 01:09 am |
|
luke12:48 wrote:I also remember reading or hearing… that factors such as who you are stealing from are considered. Does the act cause grave harm to the specific individual?
This is actually the primary criterion.
What if you are unsure of something being a grave matter? One could say that it really doesn't matter as you should confess either way and get the priest's advice. That doesn't help if there is no opportunity for confession prior to the next mass. Do you receive communion or not?
By the previous criterion, a sin is grave if it affects someone (even yourself) directly and substantially. Probably the only remedy for your dilemma is the one I myself used years ago: hammer it out in the confessional. Experience combined with specific counsel really seems to be the only reliable approach in this otherwise very subjective territory. Eventually you will get the idea.
Lest we err here, I must mention that this matter of uncertainty about sin is deadly to those suffering from scruples. The Holy Spirit cannot lead the soul ahead when the road is blocked by psychological barriers. So many of the people I deal with on this forum and elsewhere are affected by scrupulosity (a form of obsessive-compulsive behavior) that I have had to learn a bit about it as a prerequisite to being of any real help to them.
Scruples can be caused by unfamiliarity with the moral life and the practical aspects of how sin works, so the process of conversion is one of the main areas of concern, although mostly in temporary fashion. Eventually the practicing Christian, through experience and interaction with his spiritual guide, gets a personal handle on things and is enabled to move ahead into true holiness of life. (Some people also have personality traits that encourage or aggravate scruples, but I am not dealing with these unfortunates here.)
Scruples usually take the form of second guessing every moral act, allowing the victim to see sin or the possibility of sin in everything he does or might do, even things that are objectively virtuous and beneficial. The uncertainty allows scruples to feed upon themselves and grow to complete moral impasse. All priests are schooled in this vicious cycle and how to break it. Again, there is only one effective remedy: the penitent must listen to his confessor and obey him to the letter. It is a spiritual fast: no second guessing, no what-ifs, no thinking for oneself, until the cycle is broken and the temptation dies of starvation.
One of the better sources for exploring this topic in depth is Adolph Tanquerey’s The Spiritual Life. Written about 80 years ago, this well-organized tome was originally compiled as a practical manual for confessors, and I have found it invaluable in my own work, as you, Kate, have personally observed in other contexts.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 01:40 pm |
|
Did I understand that one of the main criteria of determining mortal sin is how severely it harmed someone? Why did nobody tell me this clearly before. mayube they did and i missed it. Is that correct? So that is why stealing a pencil is not grave because the person probably can live without it and is not harmed at all and probably would have given it to you if you'd asked and not let you buy them a new one. Perhaps if the pencil you stole was some precious family heirloom and you knew it, well that would be different.
Also i am confused how the terms grave sin venial sin and mortal sin work together. I am thinknig that there are only two kinds of sin we can be guilty of. Venial or mortal. But grave is just a degree that makes mortal sin possible when it is seen as a grave matter? But if that is true why this statement in the catechism.
Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin.
David told me it was not being guilty of a grave but mortal sin that makes us unworthy of communion. But this statement makes it sound like grave sin and mortal sin are the same. Is it saying that when we commit a sin that is grave matter we are only guilty of the grave sin when it was deliberate and done knowing the gravitry, otherwise it would be venial?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 10:13 pm |
|
brian wrote:Did I understand that one of the main criteria of determining mortal sin is how severely it harmed someone?
You understood correctly.
Here is an alternative way of looking at the question of mortal versus venial sin: The theological function of mortal sin is that it completely destroys charity. If I wrong my neighbor seriously, my lack of charity is obvious. The measure of a given sin, then, is whether any charity remains. If there is none, it is mortal; if it is reduced but still existing, the sin is venial.
A sin’s gravity (as in “grave” sin) is the measure of its objective seriousness. The question of mortal versus venial has to do with whether any charity remains in the commission of the sin. This is, as it were, the subjective part of the description.
This is why the virtue of charity plays such an important role in the spiritual life. As humility is the foundation of virtue, charity is the roof. Charity is held in place by the other virtues, such as faith, prudence and temperance, acting as pillars.
Since this is a symbolic way of understanding the moral life, it should not be pushed too far. But I think it has some value as an illustration.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:25 pm |
|
I need more time with what you say. I mean, I would think even a venial sin lacks charity. How could there be any charity in any sin? What charity are you referring to...like if the sin kills all the charity we have toward someone? So if we sin so grievously that we don't care for a person whatsoever it is mortal, but if we get mad but really did not do anything or will anything trying to destroy all our love for the person it is venial? Or is it the amount that we harmed them you are referring to?
Is it charity that reamins after the sin or in the sin? How can there be charity in sin? in the fact that we only harmed them a little bit, or tried to minimize the damage or rectify it in some way?
The church teaches adultery to be a grave matter and if we commit it knowingly and willingly it could be mortal sin. yet most people who commit adultery feel at least some of what they would consider "love" toward the person they commit it with. Does this make the sin not mortal? Or is it mortal because if you truly knew the evil you were committing and the harm it could cause the other persons soul you could not do that to them, therfore charity is dead and you are using eachother for pleasure? I suppose in this example other factors such would apply or vary, but how can one be killing charity in an act that they are tempted to comit because they think they "love" someone.
I am not asking because I am worried about committing adultery, but I thought it was an interesting example.
But say it was stealing. Any time you steal you are only harming a person. How could you steal in such a way that charity remains in your heart or in the action?
Also any chance you could still help me with the quote I mentioned where I thought the catechism was using the term grave sin interchangeably with mortal sin?
Last edited on Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:40 pm by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:59 pm |
|
Sorry to confuse you, Brian. It’s been a long day.
CCC 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. [My emphasis]
The charity I speak of (the theological virtue of charity) is in the person, not in the sin. You are right in understanding that no sin is charitable. This applies to both mortal and venial sin.
The “grave sin” you cite from the Catechism (CCC 1472) actually refers to mortal sin, as the context makes clear. All mortal sins are grave sins, but not all grave sins are mortal. This is confusing, which is why one needs the context to understand the intent. Anyway, you understood it rightly.
Better?
David
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 12:12 am |
|
Now you’ve added more to your post.
Most people who commit adultery feel at least some of what they would consider "love" toward the person they commit it with. Does this make the sin not mortal?
No, because what they feel is lust, not love, regardless of what the persons themselves might call it.
Furthermore, the theological virtue of charity is what we are talking about. “Love” is not always an exactly equivalent translation. Charity has to do with agape, and as such has nothing to do with other meanings of the word “love.” One who possesses the virtue of charity has both a love of God and a love of neighbor.
How could you steal in such a way that charity remains in your heart or in the action?
You yourself cited above the example of stealing a pencil. You do not lose the virtue of charity entirely because the matter is trivial. Yes, charity is reduced with each venial sin, but it is not destroyed.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 01:52 am |
|
Thank you. I think we are getting into another discussion we had now where I was figuring that if we thought or felt we had charity that we must not have committed a mortal sin. Then you seemed to warn me that we can go on through the motions sometimes and can not always know that we did or did not kill charity. Hmm. I would like to think that maybe we can not rely on our feelings, which you were warning me againt, still I would think that somehow if I went from being a person with much charity in my heart to absolutely none that even if not through a feeling, I would somehow be different noticeably.
I think what I need to understand from this discussion is that the matter of gravity is weighed by the degree it harms the person you sin against.
So now my confusion is that on the one hand we are measuring it by the amount of harm it caused, but on the other we are measuring it by how much it kills charity in our own heart. Is this because the more I allow myself to take part in something that severely harms another the more it is obvious charity is wounded or completely destroyed in myself? Therfore if I did not harm (or intend to harm) another very severely charity is still able to survive in my heart?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 09:36 am |
|
Is this because the more I allow myself to take part in something that severely harms another the more it is obvious charity is wounded or completely destroyed in myself? Therefore, if I did not harm (or intend to harm) another very severely, charity is still able to survive in my heart?
Yes, this is the evidence you will see. Sin and charity are opposites and will always be present in inverse proportions in your soul. The one is measured by the harm we do to others; the other is measured by the good we do to others.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 09:56 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
