Sin or No Sin ?

[Gabriela]

4 hours ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

This is the most jesuit thing I've read today. 

3 hours ago, Seven77 said:

or if he tries to commit suicide by eating 3 packs of bacon.

What a (glorious) way to go. 

19 minutes ago, Peace said:

I think that is the question.  Are grave matters limited to an enumerated list of actions "murder, rape, adultery" etc., or can a person's intention turn an otherwise benign action into a grave matter? I do not see why not.

For example, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, fully intending to kill the person. That is pretty bad right? I think you should do some serious jail time, even if unbeknown to you the gun was empty and the action of you pulling the trigger itself turned out to be completely harmless.

Should the person not have to go to jail only because he did not succeed in his desire to kill someone?

There's no parallel. The law, unfortunately, considers the consequences of acts, not just the intent. The Church is not consequentialist; She cares about intent.

The problem you're bringing up with the 1st Commandment is one I noticed after like my 3rd confession as a Catholic: There's the individual stoopid things I do that are enumerable sins, and then there's just me, this wretched sinful being, all of me miserable and out of control and hopelessly selfish and desperate to love God more than myself but so finking stuck on myself that I just can't Can't CAN'T actually love Him more than I do my worthless self. That's what we mean by "born in sin" and "sinful nature". It's not the number of times I gossiped, which I can count on one hand (or both hands and both feet, if I'm lucky). It's me being me. Me being human—there's just stuff about me, knitted into who I am, that is sinful and I can't make it stop.

The sin you're naming for your hypothetical guy is a sin that just being human makes unavoidable. He's going to love himself more than God. We can't help it. So no, it's not mortal, because it's always there, in your genes, in your constitution, in your very essence.

If you call that mortal, then you're saying that, by merely being fallen, we're all always, forever, perpetually in a state of mortal sin. And that means we're all damned to hell forever.

So no, your guy is not in mortal sin. He's just human, putting himself before God, and he should confess it, but he'll have to figure out how first. If he does, please tell him to let me know, cuz I've been trying to figure out how to confess the non-numerable sins of my just being fallen ever since that 3rd confession some 5 years ago.

[Nihil Obstat]

34 minutes ago, Peace said:

I think that is the question.  Are grave matters limited to an enumerated list of actions "murder, rape, adultery" etc., or can a person's intention turn an otherwise benign action into a grave matter? I do not see why not.

For example, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, fully intending to kill the person. That is pretty bad right? I think you should do some serious jail time, even if unbeknown to you the gun was empty and the action of you pulling the trigger itself turned out to be completely harmless.

Should the person not have to go to jail only because he did not succeed in his desire to kill someone?

Intent is a different criterion. We will confuse the issue if we try to blend object and intent.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Gabriela said:

The problem you're bringing up with the 1st Commandment is one I noticed after like my 3rd confession as a Catholic: There's the individual stoopid things I do that are enumerable sins, and then there's just me, this wretched sinful being, all of me miserable and out of control and hopelessly selfish and desperate to love God more than myself but so finking stuck on myself that I just can't Can't CAN'T actually love Him more than I do my worthless self.

Yes, you can. You can love God more than yourself. You can love God more than your own life. Plenty of saints have willingly given up their own lives for the love of God. So can you and I. Is that easy? No. But it is possible I think. 

Were it not possible, I would think that everyone would need to spend time in purgatory. But at least from what I have been taught it is possible for some people who are sufficiently detached to avoid purgatory altogether.

Quote

That's what we mean by "born in sin" and "sinful nature". It's not the number of times I gossiped, which I can count on one hand (or both hands and both feet, if I'm lucky). It's me being me. Me being human—there's just stuff about me, knitted into who I am, that is sinful and I can't make it stop.

Not by ourselves we cannot. But with God's help it is possible, I think.

Quote

The sin you're naming for your hypothetical guy is a sin that just being human makes unavoidable. He's going to love himself more than God. We can't help it. So no, it's not mortal, because it's always there, in your genes, in your constitution, in your very essence.

If you call that mortal, then you're saying that, by merely being fallen, we're all always, forever, perpetually in a state of mortal sin. And that means we're all damned to hell forever.

So no, your guy is not in mortal sin. He's just human, putting himself before God, and he should confess it, but he'll have to figure out how first. If he does, please tell him to let me know, cuz I've been trying to figure out how to confess the non-numerable sins of my just being fallen ever since that 3rd confession some 5 years ago.

I think I agree with your conclusion that it would not be a mortal sin. But maybe for reasons that you have alluded to rather than stated explicitly. 

If eating ribs were mortal, then seemingly every sin would be mortal, since every sin is a rejection of God, to a certain extent. With every sin to a certain extent we say "God I do not care that you forbid this".

[Gabriela]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yes, you can. You can love God more than yourself. You can love God more than your own life. Plenty of saints have willingly given up their own lives for the love of God. So can you and I. Is that easy? No. But it is possible I think. 

Were it not possible, I would think that everyone would need to spend time in purgatory. But at least from what I have been taught it is possible for some people who are sufficiently detached to avoid purgatory altogether.

Not by ourselves we cannot. But with God's help it is possible, I think.

I think I agree with your conclusion that it would not be a mortal sin. But maybe for reasons that you have alluded to rather than stated explicitly. 

If eating ribs were mortal, then seemingly every sin would be mortal, since every sin is a rejection of God, to a certain extent. With every sin to a certain extent we say "God I do not care that you forbid this".

I agree with everything you say. But it doesn't change the fact that we're all still fallen and most of us do not attain perfect love of God or total selflessness or sainthood in this life, even with all God's mercy and grace and generous help. So while in theory you are correct, in practice I am.

 

Or maybe more appropriately:  

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I agree with everything you say. But it doesn't change the fact that we're all still fallen and most of us do not attain perfect love of God or total selflessness or sainthood in this life, even with all God's mercy and grace and generous help. So while in theory you are correct, in practice I am.

 

Or maybe more appropriately:  

I ain't anywhere close to being there either. Heck, most of the folks on this forum are probably way closer than me.

At the same time though, I think that we have to accept that God gives each of us sufficient grace to become a saint. The fact that we make a choice not to cooperate with that grace (or put another way, not to allow the holy spirit to work within us) has more to do with our free will and choice to do evil than it does with any lack of grace or defect in the way that we are made. 

How about this? Let's both you and I choose to love God more than we love ourselves? I think that we can do it. 

Peace

[Papist]

15 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I know it's hypothetical and may be hyberbolic, but in the scenario the guy believes it's a grave matter and is clear about it being wrong, but eats pork any way without any qualifications.

With full knowledge and consent of will, he is purposely putting eating ribs before obeying in what he believes is a grave matter.

Kinda like you get graded on a curve if you are invincibly ignorant, but in reverse.

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.

I do not believe that simply believing it is grave matter makes it a grave matter.  If so, one could argue the reverse. 

[Anomaly]

27 minutes ago, Papist said:

I do not believe that simply believing it is grave matter makes it a grave matter.  If so, one could argue the reverse. 

Exactly!   If you don't know it is a grave matter, then it isn't.  A mortal sin requires full knowledge that it's a grave matter.  In this hypo, the guy fully believes it's a grave matter.  There is no habit, social pressure, undue outside pressure, or influence telling him that maybe it isn't a grave matter in this particular circumstance.   He coldly and clearly chose ribs over God.  He didn't forget, got distracted, was pressured by the cook, etc.

 

[Papist]

19 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Exactly!   If you don't know it is a grave matter, then it isn't.  A mortal sin requires full knowledge that it's a grave matter.  In this hypo, the guy fully believes it's a grave matter.  There is no habit, social pressure, undue outside pressure, or influence telling him that maybe it isn't a grave matter in this particular circumstance.   He coldly and clearly chose ribs over God.  He didn't forget, got distracted, was pressured by the cook, etc.

 

put simply, I believe he sinned, but sin not mortal.  But then again. I am not a moral theologian. 

[AveMariaPurissima]

On 7/6/2016 at 8:29 PM, Peace said:

Let's say a Catholic is poorly catechized, reads parts of the Bible in his spare time, and incorrectly comes to the firm conclusion that it is a grave sin and contrary to a direct commandment of God for a Catholic to eat pork. Otherwise known as swine to our Canadian friends.

Then at a July 4th BBQ party the same Catholic sees the perfect rack of ribs on the grill. He says to himself "Well. If eating pork is wrong then I don't want to be right!" He then says "God. I love you, but these ribs. These ribs man! They are too tasty. Sorry to disobey. It is what it is."

He eats the ribs fully believing that to do so is a sin against God.

Does the Catholic sin?

If so, what commandment is violated?  Mortal or venial?

Or does he not sin because in actuality he is not forbidden to eat pork?

I tend to think that he sins, but I am not quite sure what sin he is guilty of. Thoughts?

 

On 7/6/2016 at 9:27 PM, KnightofChrist said:

In other words, is it possible to sin against a malformed conscience? 

I did some research in my old high school religion textbook, Catholic Morality by Fr. John Laux, and I came up with this:

Quote

 

"If our conscience, whether it speaks the truth or not, speaks with assurance, without a suspicion of error, and its voice carries with conviction, we are said to have a certain conscience....We are always bound to follow a certain conscience, even if it is false or erroneous...The reason is clear.  We are judged by God according as we do good or evil.  Our merit or demerit is dependent on our responsibility.  We are responsible only for the good or evil we know we do.  But knowledge and certainty come from a certain conscience.  Therefore, if we disobey a certain conscience, we make ourselves responsible.  A Protestant who is fully convinced that it is a sin to hear Mass or to speak to a priest would undoubtedly commit a sin by so doing." (pg. 19)

 

Quote

 

"In the case of an erroneous conscience, the morality of an action, as we have seen above, does not depend on the object as it is in itself, but as it is represented in the mind." (pg. 25)

 

Based on these quotes, here are my thoughts on the hypothetical situation presented above:

Eating pork is certainly not sinful in itself, but the person in the example has "incorrectly come to the firm conclusion" that doing so "is a grave sin."   So in this matter the person has an erroneous conscience (since the action is not, in fact, sinful), but his erroneous conscience is also a certain conscience.  Going by Fr. Laux, he is therefore obliged to obey his conscience.

My understanding is that if a person incorrectly but sincerely believes that action X is a mortal sin and does it anyway, it is, for him at that moment, a mortal sin.  Even though the action wasn't grave, his actions showed that he was willing to do something he sincerely believed was a grave offense to God.  Conversely, if a person sincerely but incorrectly believes that action Y is not sinful (or at least not mortally sinful), when said action is in fact a grave sin, then for him in that moment, it is not a mortal sin, even though for someone properly catechized who committed the same action, it would be a sin.  Of course, we are under an obligation to form our conscience properly, but this is an ongoing process.

I am open to correction on this, but this is what I was taught, and it seems reasonable to me.

[Nihil Obstat]

That does seem reasonable. Perhaps I have assessed the incorrect moral object in my response.

[Gabriela]

This seems like a slippery slope to relativism to me. It can't be right. Because if it is, and Joe Smith firmly believes with a "certain conscience" that it would be sinful to allow his next door neighbor, an out of control pedophile, to go on living, then he would be morally obliged to follow his conscience, and to kill him.

No way. That book cannot be right. Sin is not sin only when it appears to be sin to us. There has to be something of the objective truth about sin in the definition of sin, because otherwise we can say, "Well, it's a sin to me", which sounds exactly like "Well, it's true for me"—which we hear way too much these days.

Again, turning to the hypothetical example, if that guy is a Catholic, then he has deliberately chosen to listen to "his own conscience" over the teaching of the Church. The Church says pork is a permissible food, and he says "Well, that's not true for me", and apparently Fr. Laux says, "Well, if it's not true for you, then follow your conscience and not the Church."

Nuh uh.