 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
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: Thu Jun 21st, 2007 10:03 pm |
|
I'm still missing something here....
If deciding if something is mortal or venial and the primary criterion is in the way in which it affects someone, what happens in a case where two people are involved and the action has an opposite affect on the two? What happens when the same action can cause one person to turn form God and another to grow closer, is it even a sin?
Along the same lines, if we consider "what I have done and what I have failed to do" when examining one's conscience, isn't there the possibility that even when we choose what one, we are failing in another area--the "opportunity cost" that goes with any decision. Is the reasoning used when choosing, the criteria to determining sin? If I choose a lesser good because I find it more enjoyable to me personally, then are the other choices sin "in what I have failed to do?" When do we consider a failure to do something grave?
Overall, I still see grave as something subjective to not only the situation but the person, the priest you happen to go to and even your state of mind at any given time. Have I carried the both/and mentality too far?
|
|
|
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: Thu Jun 21st, 2007 10:58 pm |
|
Luke12:48 wrote:If deciding if something is mortal or venial and the primary criterion is in the way in which it affects someone, what happens in a case where two people are involved and the action has an opposite affect on the two? What happens when the same action can cause one person to turn from God and another to grow closer, is it even a sin?
I think this is a false opposition, Kate. The reason is that sin, by its very nature, cannot cause one to to grow closer to God.
I can agree that in some cases there can be a “backlash” effect, whereby the person reacts so negatively to the actual effects of a sin committed that he is driven into the arms of God. But this is because the backlash is not the effect of sin, but of grace.
Along the same lines, if we consider "what I have done and what I have failed to do" when examining one's conscience, isn't there the possibility that even when we choose what one, we are failing in another area--the "opportunity cost" that goes with any decision. Is the reasoning used when choosing, the criteria to determining sin? If I choose a lesser good because I find it more enjoyable to me personally, then are the other choices sin "in what I have failed to do?" When do we consider a failure to do something grave?
It is possible to “choose” by doing nothing and seeing what comes of it. This is “choice” by default, and it is almost never the best way to determine one’s moral course. A positive act of choosing does two things: it allows the person to determine the course of events instead of allowing the course of events to make the choice for him; and it provides the person a moral means of turning even a poor range of options into a positive reaching for the best, perhaps even drawing good out of evil.
If a person chooses a lesser good, it may be by error or by preference. If you find a certain option “more enjoyable,” and choose it on this basis, this is a matter of preference. This can be a legitimate use of your power of choice.
But then you have to go back and ask the question, “How important in moral terms is this choice? And what else is being determined by my selection of this particular option, regardless of my motive for doing so?” For rarely does a given moral option affect only one sector of a single individual’s life. Almost always there are consequences beyond the individual, even if one is contemplating a so-called “victimless” sin. Almost always there are consequences beyond the present moment, even if one cannot see that far, simply because consequences by their nature take place over time.
Here is the “spiritual rule” for confessors: If a habitual sinner — someone who has difficulty avoiding mortal sins — is confessing having chosen a “lesser good” (where it does not result in positive sin, even though the person might have done better), it is probably of little moment in comparison to the rest of his life and should not be considered when judging the gravity of the person’s overall sinfulness. On the other hand, if the penitent is one who seldom commits even a venial sin, then choosing a “lesser good” can be very important in the spiritual life of this person and should be dealt with specifically. It may still be only what we call a fault or imperfection, as versus actual sin, but if a person is this far along in his walk with God, such imperfections can loom large as obstacles to more intimate union.
Overall, I still see grave as something subjective to not only the situation but the person, the priest you happen to go to and even your state of mind at any given time. Have I carried the both/and mentality too far?
I don’t know if I would call it a “both/and” mentality. The problem here seems to be the idea that your conscience is what makes a sin grave or minor. On the contrary, a sin is always grave or minor in an objective way; what can change with the state of one’s conscience is the culpability involved in a given sin, regardless of its gravity. So I think I would see your reasoning as a misconception concerning the nature of sin.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21st, 2007 11:09 pm |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: Overall, I still see grave as something subjective to not only the situation but the person, the priest you happen to go to and even your state of mind at any given time. Have I carried the both/and mentality too far?
No, you haven't, except that the priest is not involved in whether or not something is a grave sin.
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must be a grave evil and we must commit it knowingly and willingly. The first condition is objective; the second and third are indeed subjective. My state of mind and the situation certainly affect the gravity of my responsibility, but not the objective evil of the action.
Let's say I am driving down the road and I hit a pedestrian and kill him. That is a grave evil.
If he was drunk and staggared into my path, and I couldn't avoid hitting him, I did not commit this evil act willingly. I am not guilty of a mortal sin.
If I deliberately failed to turn on my headlights and so I didn't see him, I am responsible for my action. I endangered everyone on the highway through my negligence. I would class it as a mortal sin even though it might not be a totally willing act, since I knew that failing to turn on my headlights would endanger others.
If I am driving down the highway and I see a man walking on the shoulder, and I swerve to hit him on purpose, it is clearly a mortal sin.
When I describe the situation to a priest, he can advise me as to whether he thinks my sin is mortal, and he can forgive my sin regardless of its gravity, but whether it was actually a mortal sin is a subjective thing determined only by the circumstances and my state of mind. His advice can help me to judge the gravity of future sins, and his advice and penance can help me to recover from the spiritual damage I have caused myself, but it doesn't change the sin. So yes, the same act can be a mortal sin one day and a venial sin the next, depending on circumstances. If I miss mass this week because I'm sick, it's not a sin at all. If I miss mass next week because I want to sleep late, that's probably a mortal sin.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
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: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 12:45 am |
|
As usual I was looking for broad algorithm's to apply and I should have been more specific.
Rick-- I do think that all the examples you list are pretty clear but it is the situations that are not so clear that I question and I do believe that you can get two different answers from two different priests when trying to determine if something is a mortal sin. You are right in that the priest can give his opinion in so much as the person has explained the state of mind but what is more important is that the priest can grant absolution either way. If confession were available 24 hours a day, then the question of mortal vs venial would have less significance. However, each individual has to learn to make that judgement so they know if they can receive communion. I would think that anything involving a death should certainly at least be considered to be grave (erring on the side of caution) but what about lesser issues (of course I can't think of a great example right now) I know theft was discussed in a previous thread and I remember the concept of considering how much was taken and from whom but that still doesn't say much beacuae theft is clearly a deliberate act so the only question left is at what $ amount does it become grave? If you (not saying that you would) were to steal $5 from me, I would think that is not grave but $500 would be but what about $200, $300, $400? Hmmm this is leading to an example, what if instead of considering theft, we consider accidental damage to property--not willful but at what point does it become grave--a certain dollar amount? The sin in this case would be in not owning up to it and offering to pay for the damage ---but at what point? I will try to think of a better example.
David --the second part of your answer makes sense and the paragraph about the "spiritual rule" explains it better than I could articulate--it is indeed quite subjective. However, I could see this getting out of hand when you consider all the things that come under the heading of things I should be doing.
The first part is still troubling though--I do agree with the statement that a sin could not bring someone closer to God but what about the reverse? In refusing to sin, it is possible to be doing the right thing but be driving someone further away as a consequence. We can say that consequence is unintended, but if we know it will happen.....
Here is an example that probably fits well for many on this board. What about when once spouse converts and matters of faith enter into the marriage. If the Catholic spouse chooses God and the church over the wishes of the spouse and the non-Catholic spouse is driven further away in anger, is there a sin? It seems to me, that there is one either way --catch 22. (This could apply to a variety of marital situations from attendance at mass to having a marriage recognized to birth control to intimacy)
In one of the books on spiritual direction that I have been reading, there is discussion on purifying one's intentions
"Our divine Lord has said, "If thy eye be sound, thy whole body will be full of light. But if thy eye be evil, thy whole body will be full of darkness."[Col 3:23] The figure our Lord uses here is rather strange sounding to our ears. However, by eye He means the intention of an action, and by body He means the action itself. Therefore , if the intention of an action is good, the action, He says, will be good; and if the intention for which we do an action is bad, the action itself will be bad.
But there are degrees of purity of intention. Our intention is purer the less there is of self and self-will in our reason or motive for doing things. The purer our intention is, the more meritorious our actions are and the more glory do they give to God."
I'm not sure I agree with the statement to begin with but if you assume the interpretation is correct and applying it to the situation above, a case could be made for either course of action--just depends on your intentions. (yes, I am playing devil's advocate a bit) In one course of action, the intention to preserve one's own relationship with God and in the other, it is not to damage the spouse's relationship (presuming one exists) Both are good intentions so how do you choose? Once you choose, do you go to communion if there is no opportunity for confession first? What happens to a firm purpose of amendment when the same situation comes around again?
It all makes sense when you read it--it's the application or integration that gets difficult! All this may have muddied the water further so I'll stop here.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 08:54 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote: so the only question left is at what $ amount does it become grave? If you (not saying that you would) were to steal $5 from me, I would think that is not grave but $500 would be but what about $200, $300, $400? Hmmm this is leading to an example, what if instead of considering theft, we consider accidental damage to property--not willful but at what point does it become grave--a certain dollar amount? The sin in this case would be in not owning up to it and offering to pay for the damage ---but at what point? I will try to think of a better example.
I don't think there is a dollar amount. If I am wealthier than you and I steal $5 from you to play a video game, I believe that's a mortal sin. If you are wealthier than me but I steal $500 from you because it is the only possible way I can buy medicine for my dying wife, that is less likely to be a mortal sin (IMHO) if I truly cannot see another alternative. That doesn't make it right, but one is being done for a frivolous reason, and the other as a matter of life and death. Hypotheticals are always difficult, but the circumstances and frame of mind is always involved in the gravity of sin.
If I steal your car, is it a mortal sin? If I want to take it for a joy ride, or sell it to buy drugs, etc., then it's probably a mortal sin. If the man who kidnapped my child orders me to take it to get my child back and I see no other alternative, it's not. Same act, different motives. You have a bottle full of oxycodone and I take one pill because of the pain from my terminal cancer. You have one pill left in your bottle which you need for your cancer, and I take it to get high. Which one's a mortal sin?
As for the input of a priest, I do consider it valuable, but the priest's opinion doesn't change the act from a mortal to a venial sin or vice versa. Sin is between me and God, and only God forgives my sin (CCC1441). When a priest gives me absolution, I am not forgiven because of the priest; I am forgiven because a priest has a God-given power by virtue of his ordination. The forgiveness is coming from God. And his forgiveness (God's and the priest's) are not affected by the gravity of the sin, but by the action of my repentance. (Even a priest who has been laicized can absolve sins, although he is only allowed to do so if the penitent is in danger of death.)
And one final point. A priest is required by canon law to hear confession whenever it is reasonably requested, so at least theoretically, confession is available 24/7. However, forgiveness comes from God. Still, the Catechism stresses in 1497, "Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church." God is not bound by his sacraments, however, so God can grant forgiveness in extraordinary circumstances such as death before the availability of confession, as long as we are truly sorry for our sins and intended to confess as soon as possible.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
I'm still missing something here....
A lot of people get caught up in the same dilemma.
If deciding if something is mortal or venial and the primary criterion is in the way in which it affects someone, what happens in a case where two people are involved and the action has an opposite affect on the two?
Huh?
Are you asking whether, if "A" commits a sin and as a result "B" gets richer and "C" gets poorer, is this action a venial or a mortal sin?
I think the answer is, what did "A" intend to do? Did "A" intend to hurt "C"? In that case, "A" has committed a grave sin against love of neighbor.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation: When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.
However, if "A" intended to help "B" but did not realize that "C" would be hurt in the process, then "A" is not guilty of any sin at all.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
What happens when the same action can cause one person to turn form God and another to grow closer, is it even a sin?
Unless you mean what I surmised above, you have lost me with this example.
Along the same lines, if we consider "what I have done and what I have failed to do" when examining one's conscience, isn't there the possibility that even when we choose what one, we are failing in another area--the "opportunity cost" that goes with any decision.
I don't think we can apply economic theory to this moral doctrine. There is only so much one person can do. Every meal that you've eaten, you could have chosen to give to a homeless person. Does that mean you "failed to do" something good? No. Assuming that you didn't eat in a gluttonous fashion, you did something very good.
The main thing to remember is we must have faith in God's righteousness. The Apostle put it this way:
1 Corinthians 4:3
.... yea, I judge not mine own self. 4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Is the reasoning used when choosing, the criteria to determining sin?
Hmmm?
If I choose a lesser good because I find it more enjoyable to me personally, then are the other choices sin "in what I have failed to do?"
Lesser good? Is it unrighteusness? All unrighteousness is sin? Do you mean a lesser evil?
When do we consider a failure to do something grave?
When we do it intentionally and it results in a grave evil to someone. For instance, failing to go to Mass on a holy day of obligation is a grave evil.
Overall, I still see grave as something subjective to not only the situation but the person,
Huh?
"Grave" means "important", "weighty", "serious". Something which is important to me may not be important to you. In that sense, the concept of "something grave" is subjective. I own a dog. I know many people to whom his death would mean nothing. Definitely, my dog's death would be subjective since it would affect only my family.
However, there are "grave" matters which are objective in nature as well. The death of a loved one such as someone's mother is a grave matter which is both subjective and objective in nature. Everybody can understand the importance of one's mother in their life.
the priest you happen to go to and even your state of mind at any given time.
That is why it is important to go to a Priest isn't it? Let me give you an example. A fellow went to confession and asked the Priest whether copying videotapes which he had borrowed and rented was a sin. The Priest answered that it was a sin, it is against the law and it is a form of stealing.
My point is that the fellow didn't know because he was thinking subjectively. He thought he was saving money on videotapes. But the Priest could see the wider picture. And of course, the Priest also knew the moral law better as well. That is why we call them "Father".
Have I carried the both/and mentality too far?
I think you've confused the both/and mentality with something else upon which I can't put my finger.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
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 Jun 23rd, 2007 12:12 am |
|
Luke12:48 wrote:If confession were available 24 hours a day, then the question of mortal vs venial would have less significance. However, each individual has to learn to make that judgement so they know if they can receive communion.
Kate, the whole idea of the examination of conscience is to conform oneself, both in behavior and in understanding, to the reality that God has given us in his creation, redemption, sanctification and glorification of the human race, of which we are a part. In other words, by going through creation to him, we bring our own awareness into line with God’s own concept of good and evil.
The day I put a dollar amount on evil is the day evil becomes overwhelming in my life. At that point, I can dismiss the whole question of evil as a distraction from my main preoccupation: the enjoyment of self. Pleasure: pure subjectivity.
I know people who have done this. They are the most twisted, unreal people in the universe. The atheist is a person who takes a sophism and uses it to build a monument to self will. The pragmatist (and that is what we are talking about here) is a person who builds that same monument to self will by reckoning created goods as proportionate to God.
One of the things presented in moral theology textbooks that follow the Church’s magisterium is the fallacious reasonings of certain theologians concerning mortal and venial sin. Eventually, according to the idea of proportion in good and evil, these theologians reach the conclusion that, because of the vagueries of the human mind and will, it is nearly impossible, or even actually impossible, to commit a mortal sin.
What these “experts” are saying is exactly what you are saying: that the whole process of determining what is mortal and what is venial is subjective. And if it is subjective, there is no standard and therefore no true evil. Everything becomes a matter of intention. Sin thus becomes a matter of “mistakes” rather than real evil.
Catholic Christianity is not relativistic; it is either realistic or it is nothing. Reativism is condemned by the Church as a heresy. I grew up surrounded by a rationalism and relativism exuded by liberal Protestantism, and I rejected it because I saw clearly where that path led. Rationalists and relativists often called themselves Christians in those days, but they were not. (Now, of course, they do not bother to represent themselves as “nice guys” because they have convinced the world that such people do not exist. Hence the current aggressive anti-religion we see in society today.) I reasoned that if there is such a thing as truth, there is also such a thing as good, and both are given by God. Evil does exist. How it came to exist is a mystery, but it exists nonetheless, and it was not created by the God who made everything good from the beginning. For what accord has Christ with Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15)? I learned this as a child; it is something available to ordinary reason as well as from scripture.
The paragraph about the "spiritual rule" explains it better than I could articulate--it is indeed quite subjective.
I’m sorry, I don’t follow your line of reasoning here. The rule has to do with the penitent’s dominant fault, not whether “choosing a lesser good” is good or evil. Therefore, it is not at all subjective.
In refusing to sin, it is possible to be doing the right thing but be driving someone further away as a consequence.
I disagree. The reason is that it is that other person whose attitude is leading him away from God, not my own act which is in conformity with God’s will.
What you propose here is tantamount to the argument used by the gunman who holds someone hostage and demands a ransom. If, he says, you don’t hand over the money within a certain time limit, he will kill the hostage. And it will be all your fault if he pulls the trigger; after all, he has given you fair warning. Certainly those faced with this ultimatum will try to avoid bloodshed, but if it happens, it is not their fault, because the gunman’s demand is unreasonable to begin with.
The unspoken assumption in the quote from that book on spiritual direction is that the closer one gets to God, the sounder the eye is because it sees reality more clearly and responds to God’s goodness ever more closely. The intention is good not because of some subjective judgment but because of the divinization of the person, who now sees the real and the good and approaches them in the light of God’s glory. Therefore, it is inevitable that the body will be sound, because the eye is sound.
If the eye is blind, then obviously the body will be full of darkness. And this is what subjectivity is all about. Yes, there are “degrees of purity of intention.” Less self will is the result of the theosis or divinization that I referred to, so that as one approaches the God of glory, he gives God ever greater glory through his virtuous and meritorious life.
David
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 08:36 pm |
|
If confession were available 24 hours a day, then the question of mortal vs venial would have less significance. However, each individual has to learn to make that judgement so they know if they can receive communion....I know theft was discussed in a previous thread and I remember the concept of considering how much was taken and from whom but that still doesn't say much beacuae theft is clearly a deliberate act so the only question left is at what $ amount does it become grave?
Hi again,
Perhaps it would help if you did not focus so much on the term "grave matter". The difference between mortal and venial sin has more to do with your intention:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
mortal and venial sin in the Catechism
sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
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: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 04:35 pm |
|
Thank you all for the replies. I probably do need to place less emphasis on "grave" as a criteria. I will ponder some more...
I never meant to imply that a specific dollar amount could be identified but was using it as an analogy to ask how you determine at any given point in your journey what is considered grave.
When Rick said --
" When I describe the situation to a priest, he can advise me as to whether he thinks my sin is mortal, and he can forgive my sin regardless of its gravity, but whether it was actually a mortal sin is a subjective thing determined only by the circumstances and my state of mind. His advice can help me to judge the gravity of future sins, and his advice and penance can help me to recover from the spiritual damage I have caused myself, but it doesn't change the sin. So yes, the same act can be a mortal sin one day and a venial sin the next, depending on circumstances. If I miss mass this week because I'm sick, it's not a sin at all. If I miss mass next week because I want to sleep late, that's probably a mortal sin."
--this is what I was looking for---how to decide if something is mortal before having to ask the priest. It's not so much that I find that nothing is grave--but wonder about everything. I'm sure there is a heresy for that too and know that it is the opposite extreme but I can see where different things would be considered grave by different people at different points in their journey. When trying to consider if an act leads one away from God, I would think that the larger issues tend to decrease--sort of like staining out the largest things (ie defects, sins) first but maybe not. Maybe I am starting from an incorrect assumption. I suspect I may have to revisit the topic just a few more times :-)
|
|
|
Current time is 10:02 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
