Near Ocassions of Sin are NOT Mortal

[KnightofChrist]

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

That reasoning seems rather circular to me.

I'm sitting here eating my taco (so tasty) lunch trying to understand, how so? If we deliberately break divine and natural law when we could have avoided doing so, how is circular to say that is mortal sin?

[Peace]

4 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Not every solid theological teaching is backed by an official Church document. Very often questions like these are figured out using already-present principles of theology (though KoC offered a good quote too). For example, the Church accepts many of Aquinas's teachings to be true without releasing an official document on them. And yet Aquinas had relatively little actual authority in the Church when he was alive (as far as I know, anyway). 

Socrates and I seem to both be applying basic Christian moral principles that are already used in discussing sin to the question of near occasions of sin. I think that's a fair assessment to make, especially as, like I said, I firmly believe that the sinfulness of putting yourself in a near occasion of sin cannot be judged in retrospect (that is, based on whether one actually caves to temptation). It needs to be judged as its own action because it is one.

What is "Catholic bro-theology"? I have degrees in philosophy and theology but I've never heard it mentioned either officially or colloquially. 

Sure, I might agree that not everything requires an official Church document. You could convince me by logic or reasoning. But nobody has done that. Mortal sin requires an action that constitutes a grave matter (idolatry, fornication, rape, theft, murder, abortion, etc.). I don't think that going over to your girlfriend's apartment for Spaghetti is up there with rape in terms of gravity. Who would argue that? I go over to my girlfriend's house for Spaghetti, we have a nice dinner. I go home. I am roasting in hell with rapists and murderers for all time for that? It seems to defy basic common sense and to make the distinction between mortal and venial sin totally irrelevant. 

One would also think that in the 2000 year history of the Church, who has been tasked with protecting our souls, there would be at least one document somewhere that clearly indicates that it would (somehow) be a mortal sin. That would endanger millions of souls but they decided to leave it out of the Catechism? Why Just for kicks? 

LOL. Bro-theology is a term invented by yours truly. It refers generally to the random theological speculations of people like myself. It is a play on the term "Bro-science". Google it!

4 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm sitting here eating my taco (so tasty) (so tasty) lunch trying to understand, how so? If we deliberately break divine and natural law when we could have avoided doing so, how is circular to say that is mortal sin?

Venial sins also violate the divine law.

[KnightofChrist]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

Venial sins also violate the divine law.

That doesn't explain why you believe it is circular.

Venial sins do not necessarily need to be confessed to a priest and one can still receive absolution and be saved. However Pope Blessed Innocent XI condemned the notion that deliberately putting oneself in near occasion of sin does not need to be confessed and one could still receive absolution.

If intentionally putting oneself into a near occasion of sin must be confessed and must afterward be shunned in order to receive absolution, it seems clear that deliberately putting oneself into near occasion of sin and not shunning it is a mortal sin. It has the same effect as unrepentant mortal sin anyway, damnation, that is after all the effect of sinners not receiving absolution.

Quote

“He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.”

“The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.”

“It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.”

Pope Innocent XI, Condemned Statements in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (source)

 

[Peace]

29 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

That doesn't explain why you believe it is circular.

Perhaps circular was not the best way to describe my objection.

Your argument (at least as I understood it) was that:

An intentional violation of the divine law = mortal sin

It seemed to me that you assumed what it was that you in fact needed to prove.

I wrote that venial sins are also violations of the divine law to indicate that the assumption was not correct.

Quote

Venial sins do not necessarily need to be confessed to a priest and one can still receive absolution and be saved. However Pope Blessed Innocent XI condemned the notion that deliberately putting oneself in near occasion of sin does not need to be confessed and one could still receive absolution.

Hmm. Interesting. If putting oneself into a near occasion of sin is something that must be confessed to a priest in order to be forgiven, I think that would prove your assertion. But where exactly does Pope Blessed Innocent XI say that? I do not see such a statement in anything that you posted below.
 

Quote

 

“He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.”

The point here is that a person who persists in the the proximate occasion can be absolved in the confessional, even if he has the ability to avoid the proximate cause but refuses to do so.

But it does not state that such persistence is a mortal sin or cannot be forgiven outside of confession. It does not state that such sins must be absolved in the confessional.

The issue that is being discussed here is a bit different I think. The question relates to whether a sin can be forgiven if a person persists in it. It does not seem to relate to the gravity of the sin per se.

Quote

“The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.”

This states that the proximate occasion need not be avoided (shunned) if there is some good purpose for it (for example, going to a place where many prostitutes are, in order to evangelize to them or help them find a new life).

Quote

“It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.”

Basically the same as above - we can pursue the proximate occasion if it causes some good for ourselves or someone else.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

38 minutes ago, Peace said:

Perhaps circular was not the best way to describe my objection.

Your argument (at least as I understood it) was that:

An intentional violation of the divine law = mortal sin

It seemed to me that you assumed what it was that you in fact needed to prove.

I wrote that venial sins are also violations of the divine law to indicate that the assumption was not correct.

I have been speaking in the context of the two examples of occasions of sins you gave in the op. The occasion of sin to fornication or theft, both mortal sins not venial. Still, if we cannot receive absolution from a priest if we put ourselves in a near occasion of sin and do not shun it, that still has the same effect of an unrepented moral sin. 

Quote

Hmm. Interesting. If putting oneself into a near occasion of sin is something that must be confessed to a priest in order to be forgiven, I think that would prove your assertion. But where exactly does Pope Blessed Innocent XI say that? I do not see such a statement in anything that you posted below.
 

By his mention of absolution, absolution is part of confession, can't have absolution without confession. In order to receive absolution we must confess our sins and vow to sin no more or avoid/shun sin. If we don't confess our sins we don't receive absolution. Pope Blessed Innocent XI is making it clear that unless we confess intentionally putting ourselves into a near occasion of sin and promise to after shun doing so we cannot receive absolution, which again only comes after confession.

Quote

The point here is that a person who persists in the the proximate occasion can be absolved in the confessional, even if he has the ability to avoid the proximate cause but refuses to do so.

But it does not state that such persistence is a mortal sin or cannot be forgiven outside of confession. It does not state that such sins must be absolved in the confessional.

This states that the proximate occasion need not be avoided (shunned) if there is some good purpose for it (for example, going to a place where many prostitutes are, in order to evangelize to them or help them find a new life).

Basically the same as above - we can pursue the proximate occasion if it causes some good for ourselves or someone else.

It can be confusing, but Pope Blessed Innocent XI is actually condemning these notions as errors. In the degree he is listing various errors that are condemned. Basically he means the opposite is in fact true.

For example what he really means is

'We condemn the erroneous belief that a man can be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.'

'We condemn the erroneous belief that the proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.'

'We condemn the erroneous belief that it is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.'

Edited July 28, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[dairygirl4u2c]

kinda a tangent. but i always thought it might be admirable, put hair on your chest, to put yourself in the near occassion of sin if you knew you could resist, just to make you tougher and show that you can resist. not sure i buy the idea, but i entertain the idea a lot.

[LittleWaySoul]

On 7/28/2016 at 0:53 PM, Peace said:

Sure, I might agree that not everything requires an official Church document. You could convince me by logic or reasoning. But nobody has done that. Mortal sin requires an action that constitutes a grave matter (idolatry, fornication, rape, theft, murder, abortion, etc.). I don't think that going over to your girlfriend's apartment for Spaghetti is up there with rape in terms of gravity. Who would argue that? I go over to my girlfriend's house for Spaghetti, we have a nice dinner. I go home. I am roasting in hell with rapists and murderers for all time for that? It seems to defy basic common sense and to make the distinction between mortal and venial sin totally irrelevant. 

The qualifications for near occasion of sin's mortal/venial nature outlined in mine and @Socrates' previous posts don't say that it is always a mortal sin. Rather, they give guidelines to discover whether it might be or not. These aren't arguments saying that putting yourself in a near occasion of sin is always mortal. Rather, they're attempts to help someone figure out whether their action is mortal or not.

Both Socrates and I used the qualifications for mortal sin itself (grave matter, full knowledge, full consent) and applied it to putting yourself in a near occasion of sin. Therefore, if the near occasion of sin is: (A) a temptation to a grave sin, (B) with full knowledge that you have little power to avoid said sin, and (C) you fully choose to put yourself there, then there is a possibility that such a situation puts one in mortal sin. However, it could also be venial depending on whether it conforms to the qualifications of mortal sin or not. 

Without knowing yours or your girlfriend's hearts, I'd wager a guess that going to her apartment for spaghetti may not even be venial, but if it's sinful at all, it's very likely not mortal. Especially since I'm assuming that both of you have a reasonable amount of self-control and have successfully had dinner alone without having it develop into something more. Seems innocent enough to me.

But I still maintain that there could be certain situations where putting oneself in a near occasion of sin *could* be mortal. For example, if someone had a crazy urge to brutally murder someone (hey, it's happened before), and they knew they couldn't resist doing it if they waited in a dark alley for someone to come along, and they knew it was a mortal sin to murder someone, putting themselves in that dark alley would be a mortally sinful near occasion of sin, regardless of whether anyone actually came down the alley or whether they ended up killing them.

I sincerely doubt that you're in mortal sin for going over to your girlfriend's apartment for spaghetti. But I don't want to close the door on the possibility of other near occasions of sin done in other situations which could be mortally sinful. I think that situations like that do exist, regardless of whether either of us has ever encountered them.

Quote

One would also think that in the 2000 year history of the Church, who has been tasked with protecting our souls, there would be at least one document somewhere that clearly indicates that it would (somehow) be a mortal sin. That would endanger millions of souls but they decided to leave it out of the Catechism? Why Just for kicks? 

I think the Church assumes that people will apply the qualifications for mortal sin to every action they make. That includes the action of placing oneself in a near occasion of sin. The Church isn't going to outline every individual minute instance where an action could be mortally sinful-- that's impossible. And as in most actions, putting yourself in a near occasion of sin could go either way. There is no absolute statement of either, "NEAR OCCASIONS OF SIN ARE ALWAYS MORTALLY SINFUL," or "NEAR OCCASIONS OF SIN ARE ALWAYS VENIALLY SINFUL," or "NEAR OCCASIONS OF SIN ARE NEVER IN THEMSELVES SINFUL," because it could be any of the three, depending on context.

Quote

LOL. Bro-theology is a term invented by yours truly. It refers generally to the random theological speculations of people like myself. It is a play on the term "Bro-science". Google it!

Ahh. Makes sense! Thanks for explaining, lol  

[Jack4]

1)Meaningful words from the CA article linked: Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it). 

2)Note: Venial sin is NOT "okay-to-commit" sin. We should die rather than do a venial sin.