A Good Rule of Thumb for Sin in Thought

[theodosius]

I recently came across this article by Dan Burke on understanding lustful thoughts in light faith. The framework he provides for distinguishing between when we sin mortally and venially in thought seems pretty sound to me. I was wondering what others here thought about it, not just in regard to the vice of lust, but also in relation to other grave sins?

So, for example:

Scenario 1: The thought crosses my mind. I reject it and direct my attention elsewhere. This is not sin.

A thought relating to a grave sin crosses my mind (e.g., “I could get an abortion” or “God does not exist”). I dismiss it. No sin has been committed.

Scenario 2: The thought crosses my mind. I entertain it or dwell on it for a moment, and then reject it. Now I have embraced a sinful thought and engaged it with my will. This embrace, even if only slight, can place us within venial sin territory.

Instead of dismissing one of the above thoughts, I decide to dwell on it or entertain it for a few minutes, but then quickly come to my senses and reject it. I’m pretty sure that this would constitute a venial sin, as with lust, since I’m flirting with grave matters here.

Scenario 3: The thought crosses my mind. I entertain or dwell on it and continue to do so deliberately. I relish and enjoy the thought and embrace it whenever it pops up. Now we are in mortal sin territory.

Regarding my examples of non-sexual grave mattes given above, it seems rather probable that this scenario would be mortally sinful. That is, if I’m crossing the line from briefly entertaining a thought once (which, I propose is venially sinful), to forming a habit of entertaining it and embracing it whenever it crosses my mind (e.g., of procuring an abortion or of denying God’s existence), I think it’s enough to qualify as a grave sin. Especially if I’m relishing in it.

Scenario 4: The thought crosses my mind. I entertain and dwell on it. I then act or attempt to act on it. Now we are unquestionably in the realm of mortal sin.

This one seems pretty self-explanatory.

I should also note that, apart from my interest in moral theology, one of the reasons this interests me as a fruitful example is that St. Ignatius of Loyola in his discussion of sins of thought, word, and deed that appears in Spiritual Exercises, discusses scenarios 1, 2, and 4, but not 3.

So, what are everyone’s thoughts on this? Is the above template a pretty good rule of thumb for deciding if one has crossed the line and gravely sinned?

 

[Vico]

…

Temptation → Partial Consent (slight sin) → Evil Desire with Enjoyment (interior sin) → Commission (Exterior sin)

Bishop of Krishnagar Louis LaRavoire Marrow, My Catholic Faith - A Manual of Religion pp. 50-51, Copyright, 1949, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963 by Louis LaRavoire Morrow

1. Sin is not committed without temptation. First an evil thought comes into the mind. This in itself is not sinful; it is only a temptation.

• A man may be in a jewelry store looking at some jewels. The salesman turns away to talk to someone else, leaving a precious diamond ring on the counter. The thought enters the man’s mind that it would be easy for him to take the ring and walk away unnoticed. This is temptation, not sin.

1. If we do not immediately reject the thought, it awakens in the mind an affection or liking for it.

• If the man in the above example does not resist and reject the thought, but plays with it, and becomes pleased with the idea, he thereby gives partial consent, and commits a slight sin.

1. Next the thought is followed by an evil desire in which we take pleasure.

• If, still playing with the thought, the man wishes that he could take the diamond ring without being noticed, the consent is complete, and he commits a sin in his heart (interiorly).

1. The resolution to commit the sin when occasion presents itself follows. Then the exterior act is committed.

• Finally, the man glances to see if the salesman is still busy. Then he takes the ring and walks away with it. Thus the wish or desire has been translated into an exterior act. Even should the man be prevented from stealing, he is guilty of grave sin.

An exterior sin is more evil than an interior sin, because it is attended by worse consequences.

• An exterior sin often causes scandal, and is therefore more severely punished by God here on earth as well as after death.
• Drunkenness reduces the drunkard and his family to poverty and sickness. Impurity destroys the body, sometimes producing insanity. Murder often leads the culprit to the electric chair.
• And worse, an exterior sin increases the malice of the will, and destroys the sense of shame. The repetition of exterior sins forms the habit of sinning, and vice is formed. The conscience goes to sleep, and the sinner becomes so hardened that he no longer sees the evil and wickedness of his sin.

 

[theodosius]

@Vico That actually makes a lot of sense, and marries nicely with what St. Ignatius of Loyola was saying in his Spiritual Exercises. I would imagine that, by this explanation, “slight sins” are always venial?

 

[Vico]

@Vico That actually makes a lot of sense, and marries nicely with what St. Ignatius of Loyola was saying in his Spiritual Exercises. I would imagine that, by this explanation, “slight sins” are always venial?

Yes venial sin through partial consent. Consent could also be given through indifference.