Supersizing Venial Sin

[Jaime]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1346912406' post='2479328']
Jimmy Akin actually answered a question on this on Catholic Answers Forums long ago. Here it is: [url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=52605#post52605"]http://forums.cathol...52605#post52605[/url]
[/quote]

I agree with Akin on this, if you think it's a sin and you do it, it's a sin. But he doesn't say mortal sin and he's right to not call it that. If you think something is a sin of grave matter (like my example of skipping brushing your teeth) because your mom said that God would send you to hell for not brushing, it can be a sin but it cannot be a mortal sin.

Conscience does not and can not define what constitutes grave matter. And an action has to be of grave matter to meet the criteria

[Egidio]

[b] [/b]

[font=times new roman,times,serif][quote name='BarbaraTherese' timestamp='1347064700' post='2480095']
No theologian sitting here for sure!
Re formal and material sin, it would be helpful to have a definition. Be this as it may, non grave matter, remains non grave matter under any and all circumstances and if there is no grave matter, there can be no mortal sin; however, the intention of the heart may constitute grave matter. I am presuming only that "material" is the non grave (or grave) matter and "formal" is the intention/motivation etc. involved?
The problem with all branches of theology at times can be is that only theologians can understand leaving the rest floundering and on a subject that may be important, even vital, to all levels and qualifications in The Church. And I am pretty low down on the understanding scale of things most everywhere.

[/quote][/font]
[b] [/b]

[b] [font=times new roman,times,serif]This is an explanation of material and formal sin as found in the Catholic encyclopedia:[/font][/b]

[i]"This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm"]act[/url]). An actionwhich, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm"]Divine law[/url] but is not [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]known[/url] to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm"]law[/url] as shown him by his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm"]conscience[/url], whether such [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm"]law[/url] really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]person[/url] who takes the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm"]property[/url] of another while [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm"]believing[/url] it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm"]property[/url] in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm"]belief[/url] that it belonged to another, whether his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm"]belief[/url] were correct or not."[/i]


Here is another quote from the EWTN website, which makes the distinction between material and formal heresy. I think it might make things clearer.

"[i]The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God."[/i]

[size=5][b]Don't be afraid if at first you don't understand! The means are out there so that we might comprehend!! [/b][/size]
AVE MARIA!!!

[BarbTherese]

Thank you!
I was just about to post the New Advent definition also, which you have already given above. I found it while researching on the internet "material sin" and "formal sin" this afternoon and for me it was an explanation that clicked into place.

[TheUbiquitous]

Hrm. Not seeing much interaction with the actual arguments included in the OP.

[Amppax]

[quote name='TheUbiquitous' timestamp='1347123847' post='2480283']
Hrm. Not seeing much interaction with the actual arguments included in the OP.
[/quote]

It's a bit tl;dr.

[Jaime]

[quote name='TheUbiquitous' timestamp='1347123847' post='2480283']
Hrm. Not seeing much interaction with the actual arguments included in the OP.
[/quote]

People often get derailed. But Id like to hear your argument against my point on the fact that grave sins have to connected to the 10 commandments.

[carmenchristi]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1347132390' post='2480336']
People often get derailed. But Id like to hear your argument against my point on the fact that grave sins have to connected to the 10 commandments.
[/quote]

Don't think anyone can make much of an argument against that:
CCC 1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

[Jaime]

[quote name='carmenchristi' timestamp='1347158032' post='2480423']
Don't think anyone can make much of an argument against that:
CCC 1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
[/quote]

my point exactly

[carmenchristi]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1347066838' post='2480107']
I agree with Akin on this, if you think it's a sin and you do it, it's a sin. But he doesn't say mortal sin and he's right to not call it that. If you think something is a sin of grave matter (like my example of skipping brushing your teeth) because your mom said that God would send you to hell for not brushing, it can be a sin but it cannot be a mortal sin.

Conscience does not and can not define what constitutes grave matter. And an action has to be of grave matter to meet the criteria
[/quote].

I agree with this.

I DO believe however that it is possible for a sin of this nature to be a mortal sin, or rather for it to carry with it a DIFFERENT sin that can be mortal.

If I think that skipping brushing my teeth constitutes grave matter and I do it anyway because I'm lazy then I can hardly commit a mortal sin.

If however I am angry with God and desire to do something to offend Him so I chose to skip brushing my teeth purposely to get "even"... well that could very well be a mortal sin.

NOW, I would continue to hold that we are not actually supersizeng venial sin (or in this case imperfection) at all, but we are dealing with another matter altogether.

In the first case, I do sin in two ways, for my laziness and because I believe that I am failing to fulfill a serious moral obligation. This does not in itself constitute grave matter.

In the second case, I could very well sin mortally, but not because of the act in question but because of my anger and desire to offend God... which falls into the category of being against the 10 commandments and does constitute grave matter...

I'll try to back this up more when I get a chance. Interested to know what you think Jamie...

[TheUbiquitous]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1347132390' post='2480336']
People often get derailed. But Id like to hear your argument against my point on the fact that grave sins have to connected to the 10 commandments.
[/quote]

Argument the Second, OP.

Edited September 9, 2012 by TheUbiquitous

[carmenchristi]

So... as you may have read, I rode my horse to Mass this morning. Since it was a 5 mile ride 1 way, I had some time to further consider this.

I'd like to propose another example.

Let's say that there is a guy named Jim. Jim was born in Turkey in a Muslim family. He lived in Turkey his whole life and was a devout Muslim. One day he meets a Catholic missionary and secretly converts and is baptized. He goes through RCIA, but it's pretty incomplete. Still, he learns about mortal sin and venial sin, and he learns the 10 commandments. He knows that he is obligated to keep holy the Lord's day and that means going to Mass, which is actually available to him on a daily basis because he lives near the Cathedral. Still, Jim is convinced that the Lord's day is Friday. He devoutly attends Mass every Friday, but it's a quick Mass and there is no homily so he has no way of finding out that he is not obligated to go to Mass on Friday, but on Sunday. One Friday, Jim decides that he is sick of waking up early on his only day off from work so he decides that he will not go to Mass, even though he knows that it is serious not to do so.

Question is... where does this stand in the context of our discussion?

Jim does not sin by not going to Mass on Sunday, because he doesn't know that is what he is supposed to do. Still, he knows that he has an obligation and believes to be fulfilling it until one day he arbitrarily decides that he isn't going to do it.

So [i]unlike[/i] the teeth brushing example, we are dealing with something that is [i]actually [/i]grave matter, but the conscience of the person in question alters the whole situation.

Can we really say that this case does not constitute grave matter because we are not actually obligated to go to Mass on Friday? I think I made my position clear in my earlier post, but would be interested in feedback.

[Jaime]

[quote name='TheUbiquitous' timestamp='1347219523' post='2480687']
Argument the Second, OP.
[/quote]

The first commandment is "I am the Lord your God. You will have no other Gods before me" So I don't think this actually works. Being angry at God recognizes that he is God. Being angry at God and doing a venial sin (or a non sin in the case of the tooth brushing example) does not break our relationship with God. The key to this is a relationship with God. And I don't know a single faithful person who has not had an occasion when they were angry with God.

Also for something to be mortally sinful it has to follow all three criteria. (we're all on the same page here) That being said, a sin of grave matter doesn't always equal a mortal sin does it? Let's take the always fun and popular topic of pornography. The viewing of pornography is a sin of grave matter. But there are those who while wanting to stop viewing pornography, continue to do so because they feel out of control and addicted. They will bring it to confession on a regular basis but because they are actively trying to overcome their addiction to porn. Their confessor may tell them that they can receive communion in between confessions even if they have slipped and viewed pornography prior to reception. They are not giving permission for the person to sin but the confessor has made the judgement that because it is an addiction it does not fulfill the third criteria of full assent. Since the confessor is acting in persona christi, they have the right to make that assessment.

Again I'm not saying the action isn't sinful. I'm saying that unless it pertains to an action of grave matter, it isn't mortally sinful.
Venial sin cannot become grave matter.

[Jaime]

[quote name='carmenchristi' timestamp='1347222229' post='2480711']
So... as you may have read, I rode my horse to Mass this morning. Since it was a 5 mile ride 1 way, I had some time to further consider this.

I'd like to propose another example.

Let's say that there is a guy named Jim. Jim was born in Turkey in a Muslim family. He lived in Turkey his whole life and was a devout Muslim. One day he meets a Catholic missionary and secretly converts and is baptized. He goes through RCIA, but it's pretty incomplete. Still, he learns about mortal sin and venial sin, and he learns the 10 commandments. He knows that he is obligated to keep holy the Lord's day and that means going to Mass, which is actually available to him on a daily basis because he lives near the Cathedral. Still, Jim is convinced that the Lord's day is Friday. He devoutly attends Mass every Friday, but it's a quick Mass and there is no homily so he has no way of finding out that he is not obligated to go to Mass on Friday, but on Sunday. One Friday, Jim decides that he is sick of waking up early on his only day off from work so he decides that he will not go to Mass, even though he knows that it is serious not to do so.

Question is... where does this stand in the context of our discussion?

Jim does not sin by not going to Mass on Sunday, because he doesn't know that is what he is supposed to do. Still, he knows that he has an obligation and believes to be fulfilling it until one day he arbitrarily decides that he isn't going to do it.

So [i]unlike[/i] the teeth brushing example, we are dealing with something that is [i]actually [/i]grave matter, but the conscience of the person in question alters the whole situation.

Can we really say that this case does not constitute grave matter because we are not actually obligated to go to Mass on Friday? I think I made my position clear in my earlier post, but would be interested in feedback.
[/quote]

The catechism is pretty clear with Jim. If he has been poorly catechized, (Friday obligation v Sunday) then he has sinned but not mortally. Regardless of what his intent is at this point, the fact that he doesn't have a full understanding of the faith, I would think precludes him from mortally sinning.

[TheUbiquitous]

But the conscience is the herald of God. By choosing one thing over what the herald of God tells you to do --- God tells you to do --- you place something at a higher level than God. From here, "false gods" and "idolatry" follows.

[Jaime]

[quote name='TheUbiquitous' timestamp='1347226124' post='2480749']
But the conscience is the herald of God. By choosing one thing over what the herald of God tells you to do --- God tells you to do --- you place something at a higher level than God. From here, "false gods" and "idolatry" follows.
[/quote]

That position makes every single sin mortal