Is venial sin ever actually the right thing to do?

[Ziggamafu]

So then in certain cases, venial sin might be the right thing to do, if another option would seem to be a worse sin.

So is this kind of judgment left to one's own conscience?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:44 AM']So then in certain cases, venial sin might be the right thing to do, if another option would seem to be a worse sin.
[/quote]
I would not say it is the right thing to do. We are using the word "sin" here and I do not think that quite works.

One could better say that one may perform an action foreseeing that evil may result from it (not only sin does this) as long as one approriatly applies the principle of double effect. I do not think that you can say you must sin, even venially, for good because that would, at least at first glance, violate the third guidline.

You could not say that one must sin for some good purpose for that would appear as though God is requiring someone to sin and that is never the case. What you could say, however, is that one may perform a good action for a good end although it is foreseeable that some evil may result from it.

Sin, in the [i]strictest [/i]sense, is never the "right" thing to do, but an evil may be permitted for some greater good circumstantially.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:44 AM']So then in certain cases, venial sin might be the right thing to do, if another option would seem to be a worse sin.

So is this kind of judgment left to one's own conscience?
[right][snapback]801477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is left to one's conscience, however, one may never do an evil in order to bring about good.

In my analogy of double effect, the choices were not made in order to do evil. The choice was made in order to limit evil. The pilot is not doing good, nor is he under the impotice that he is planning on doing good, but rather he is knowingly committing an eivl in order to counteract a greater evil.

It is not so much that committing the sin was the right thing to do, but it was the lesser of the bad things to do.

I would suggest that you look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph nos. 1776-1802.

[Ziggamafu]

Ok. Then I'll get to the point of why I started this thread in the first place. It really bugs me when there are liturgical abuses. Especially blatent ones like not kneeling during consecration.

However...

When I'm at a parish full of nice people who choose to stand, rather than kneel, during consecration, I usually follow suit. ESPECIALLY (maybe "only" if memory serves me) when there is no room between my chair and the chair immediately in front of me (I would have to disrupt Mass by pushing the chairs apart, just so I have enough room). I lump liturgical abuse into the "venial sin" category and I was wondering if double-effect made my actions in such situations the best choice.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 28 2005, 07:59 AM']Ok. Then I'll get to the point of why I started this thread in the first place. It really bugs me when there are liturgical abuses. Especially blatent ones like not kneeling during consecration.

However...

When I'm at a parish full of nice people who choose to stand, rather than kneel, during consecration, I usually follow suit. ESPECIALLY (maybe "only" if memory serves me) when there is no room between my chair and the chair immediately in front of me (I would have to disrupt Mass by pushing the chairs apart, just so I have enough room). I lump liturgical abuse into the "venial sin" category and I was wondering if double-effect made my actions in such situations the best choice.
[right][snapback]802423[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't have time to get into it, cuz of work, but double effect doesn't apply in the cases of liturgical abuse.

I am sure that someone will comment and explain further, however, double effect applies only when the circumstances are grave. And the criteria must be very metered, that is to say, they are very limited.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 28 2005, 08:30 AM']I am sure that someone will comment and explain further, however, double effect applies only when the circumstances are grave.  And the criteria must be very metered, that is to say, they are very limited.
[right][snapback]802429[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Anyway I would say that principle of double effect would not apply for a litrugical abuse is wrong by its nature. I am not sure if that is where Cam was headed with this but that is what I came up with real quick.

[Ziggamafu]

Huh? Are you saying that complying with a liturgical abuse is a grave matter? That seems obviously venial...and I don't recall anything in the CCC that states otherwise...

Which is better? To disrupt Mass and scandalize a dissident parish by shoving chairs out of the way and getting people to move so you have room to kneel OR standing/sitting respectfully and prayerfully as a reluctant alternative?

[Ziggamafu]

bump

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 29 2005, 09:46 AM']Huh? Are you saying that complying with a liturgical abuse is a grave matter? That seems obviously venial...and I don't recall anything in the CCC that states otherwise...

Which is better? To disrupt Mass and scandalize a dissident parish by shoving chairs out of the way and getting people to move so you have room to kneel OR standing/sitting respectfully and prayerfully as a reluctant alternative?
[/quote]
No I did not mean that it is necessarily a grave matter.

[avemaria40]

I don't think it is the right thing to do, although it certainly is not grave matter, it's just not reccommended.