Deliberate venial sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zynxensar

Guest
I am not using this as an excuse to sin in any way.

Are deliberate venial sins mortal?

Reason behind asking this being a mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent. A deliberate sin has full knowledge and consent present. Even if the matter being committed is small, does deliberately committing sin, knowing that it’ll offend God count as “grave matter”?
 
thistle said:
No. Venial sins can never become mortal. Repeated venial sinning might lead you on a wrong path but a venial sin cannot be a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Actually, there can be a way in which venial sins become mortal. The three criteria for a sin to be mortal are:
  1. Grave matter
  2. full knowledge that the severity of the action
  3. full consent to the action with an uninfluenced act of the will.
If the sin was only venial because there was some sort of outside coercion, and then the person decides to commit the same sin outside of that coercive activity, what was a venial sin becomes a mortal sin as the third criterion becomes valid in addition to the other two.

For example: If someone is somehow forcing a person to commit a theft (blackmail, threatening loved ones, etc.), the theft is a venial sin if the person forced does not want to do it, but are coerced into doing it anyway. If the coercion stops and the person decides to steal yet again, then what was a venial sin becomes a mortal.

This is only in the case of the third criterion being the deciding factor for the sin being considered venial. If the matter is not grave or there is no there full awareness of the immorality of the action, then the sin would still be venial.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM
 
The definition of a venial sin is that it is a sin that does not meet the conditions for being considered a mortal sin. A venial sin, by definition, per the principle of non-contradiction, can never be a mortal sin.

You should get help for your scruples offline and in person with a priest and a mental health professional. Posting these threads will not help you and will only feed your compulsions.

-Fr ACEGC
 
the principle of non-contradiction is applied between a proposition and its opposite. the opposite of mortal sin is not venial sin so we can not apply here the principle of non-contradiction
 
The principle of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. A sin is either mortal or venial. A mortal sin fulfills three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, free consent of the will. If any condition is not present, the sin is not mortal but venial. And so a sin cannot both be mortal and venial at the same time. Thus, I have accurately applied the principle of non-contradiction.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Yes in that sense you are right, and I spoke without thinking. But, as you present the problem it is pretty simplistic. The notion of serious matter for example is not so obvious as that, the gravity of the matter can also depend on the circumstances. To say idle words is, for example, a light matter in itself, but if one says these words with the intention of committing adultery, then by saying these idle words one commits a grave sin, because a bad end corrupts all the means used.
Saint Thomas D’Aquin explained well I quote:
That venial sin becomes mortal can be understood in three ways.
1 ° In that sense that Digitally identical act would first be venial sin and then mortal. This is not possible, because sin, like all moral acts, consists principally in an act of the will; what fact that if the will changes, we can no longer say that there is morally one act, although the action in his natural being is continuous; and, if the will does not change, it is not possible to move from
venial sin to mortal sin.
2 ° It can mean that what is venial of its kind becomes
deadly. This is possible when one puts a finallity to a venial sin, or is brought back to a mortal sin as an end, as we have said.
3 ° It can mean that many sins venials make a mortal sin. If we mean that with many venial sins we could to constitute one mortal sin in its entirety is false.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mortal sins are mortal sins, venial sins are venial sins. “Mortal” means “it kills you”, as in, “I was shot in the chest and the wound was mortal”. If a wound doesn’t kill you, then it isn’t definitionally mortal.

All mortal sins are deliberate sins but not all deliberate sins are mortal sins. There is always, technically, some amount of deliberation to any sin, otherwise it wouldn’t be a sin at all. A person might curse out of habit, but the sin is that the person wasn’t being as aware as what they could have been in order to prevent auto-pilot from turning on.
 
Last edited:
One circumstance can cause the kind of a sin to be mutated, that is what Saint Thomas explains, and I have given a link above where Jesus in his revelation to Saint Brigitte also explains it very well.
To take your comparison, an injury can be fatal or benign according to the delicacy of the person to whom the injury was caused
 
I didn’t present the problem as simplistic, or really in any other way. A question was asked, a relatively simple one, and I gave a simple answer. No need to overcomplicate something, especially when it comes to common sense application of simple philosophical and moral principles.

And the quote from St. Thomas is an incomplete one. You have cited the beginning of the article, where he asks the question and lists the objections. Here is the answer to the question:
I answer that, The fact of a venial sin becoming a mortal sin may be understood in three ways. First, so that the same identical act be at first a venial, and then a mortal sin. This is impossible: because a sin, like any moral act, consists chiefly in an act of the will: so that an act is not one morally, if the will be changed, although the act be continuous physically. If, however, the will be not changed, it is not possible for a venial sin to become mortal.

Secondly, this may be taken to mean that a sin generically venial, becomes mortal. This is possible, in so far as one may fix one’s end in that venial sin, or direct it to some mortal sin as end, as stated above (Article 2).

Thirdly, this may be understood in the sense of many venial sins constituting one mortal sin. If this be taken as meaning that many venial sins added together make one mortal sin, it is false, because all the venial sins in the world cannot incur a debt of punishment equal to that of one mortal sin. This is evident as regards the duration of the punishment, since mortal sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment, while venial sin incurs a debt of temporal punishment, as stated above (q87, aa3&5). It is also evident as regards the pain of loss, because mortal sins deserve to be punished by the privation of seeing God, to which no other punishment is comparable, as Chrysostom states. It is also evident as regards the pain of sense, as to the remorse of conscience; although as to the pain of fire, the punishments may perhaps not be improportionate to one another.

If, however, this be taken as meaning that many venial sins make one mortal sin dispositively, it is true, as was shown above (Article 3) with regard to the two different manners of disposition, whereby venial sin disposes to mortal sin.
Click to expand...
If you actually read what he says, in the “I answer that…” section, he argues that an act once committed could not become a different class of sin, i.e. a venial sin already done could not somehow “mutate” into a mortal sin. A sin is an act that occurs in a fixed point in time, and it can’t be altered somehow ex post facto. He further says that a whole collection of venial sins do not add up to a mortal sin, which again, is common sense–he states that the punishment due for one mortal sin (i.e. eternal separation from God) is far greater than the weight of punishment for all the venial sins in the world.

With regards to disposition, i.e. that venial sin disposes one to mortal sin, then yes, a venial sin can lead to a mortal sin. But again, one act once committed cannot somehow change into another kind of act after the fact.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Last edited:
To follow up a bit on the way articles in the Summa of St. Thomas are structured, what you have quoted is potential objections to the question, in this case of “Whether a venial sin can become mortal?” If we were to look at the similar objection section in part I, question 2, article 3, “Whether God exists,” we would find this:
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.
Click to expand...
So does that mean that St. Thomas denies the existence of God? No. He goes on to give a contrary statement, then to answer the question, and then to reply to the objections. But if we quote just the objections out of context, we could make it appear as though St. Thomas is denying the existence of God. He isn’t; he’s merely showing ways one might object to the question of God’s existence. Just the same, in the objections you quoted, he’s showing ways someone might object to the question of whether a mortal sin can become venial. He will go on to parse out the truth of the matter in the sections that follow.

-Fr ACEGC
 
For a sin to be mortal, it needs to be grave matter (objectively, it is grave), you need to know it’s grave (your conscience must judge it to be grave), and you must have full consent of the will (You’re not feeling compelled, coerced or even that your falling into this due to a weakness of will. You have to be totally steaming ahead straight into it, fully willfully).

Venial sins can be any sin that lacks any part of these components. They can be non-grave matters. They can be committed due to an error in our own judgement. They can be committed because of a weakness of will. Moroever, what matters is our orientation toward God. Are we heading toward him or away? If we’re trying to turn salvation into a game, where we willfully keep our consciences ignorant or do not strive to cultivate virtue (self control, etc), then we are gravely sinning as well.

Because of this last component, merely looking at someone’s actions does not tell you whether they’re in a state of mortal sin or not. Much falls into their own moral formation, their upbringing, and factors within their heart that we simply cannot judge. Moreover, there is a spiritual vanity we can develop from taking pride in the obedience to the letter of the law. This is the error of the Pharisees. If we are prone to harsh judgement and condemnation of others, we’re giving into this spiritual pride.
 
No, there you are wrong. St. Thomas’s answer to venial sins is quite clear. He clearly said that if one considers venial sin in its kind he can become mortal according to the purpose intended by the will. And he even gave an example to support that.
And he’s not even the only one to have said it, I gave a link above where other saint say it
 
In general, sins are considered a priori by their gender, for example a priori adultery is classified as a mortal sin, and idle words as venial sin because of their matter.
But circumstances can make a matter light, grave, and that’s what St. Thomas explains.
And finally his explanation is sufficiently limpid, if for example someone says idle words (which is a light matter in itself) with the intention of committing adultery, he will have committed a mortal sin, even if after, he does not commit more adultery.

When Jesus told Saint Brigid that a sin that is venial in its matter becomes mortal when it is done with pleasure and with the intention of persevering, I find that logical.
For example, if you sting someone with a needle without hurting can be considered a slight harm in itself, doing it with pleasure and with the intention of starting again in the future is in my opinion serious, because it is sadism.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say that he didn’t say that. I’m not entirely sure where “there” is that I am supposedly wrong. Please explain?
 
You said that I have quoted potential objections to support the fact that a venial sin in its kind could become mortal. It was not a potential objection presented by St Thomas, but his own opinion.
 
No, this is not how the Summa works. St. Thomas asks a question, in this case, "Whether a venial sin can become a mortal sin. He then lists at least three (and sometimes more) objections to the question. He then says “On the contrary” and lists a statement which counters the objections. He then says “I answer that…” and responds to the question based on the contrary statement. He then replies to each objection. You have quoted only the objections from the above article. They do not necessarily constitute St. Thomas’s opinion, but rather objections he anticipates. He then parses them out and replies to each of them. In the end, he considers that there are ways in which one could say a venial sin becomes a mortal sin, in some sense, but there are other ways, namely the ones I have cited, that it cannot. He’s very careful about his use of language and trying to be precise here.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top