Did I do something wrong?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

As others have answered…

Without intent, there is no sin. There is no need to confess this, although it may be good to mention it in your next confession if you wish, since it’s still an objectively bad thing to do. So work on not doing it again and be sorry that you may have offended God this time even if you didn’t mean to. But don’t beat yourself up over it either.

If there was no sin, how might God have been offended?

 

[underacloud]

If there was no sin, how might God have been offended?

The act itself is an objective sin. The act offends God.

God will not be offended by the person who does not choose to commit the sin, but there is something wrong in the act nonetheless. The person who realises this then says sorry. This is much the same as if I said or did something that offended you, even though I didn’t realise it, and so I apologize after the fact. That’s all I meant.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The act itself is an objective sin. The act offends God.

God will not be offended by the person who does not choose to commit the sin, but there is something wrong in the act nonetheless. The person who realises this then says sorry. This is much the same as if I said or did something that offended you, even though I didn’t realise it, and so I apologize after the fact. That’s all I meant.

But, in this case the person did not yell out random sounds that just happened to form certain words. They actually said it which even though that is an excited utterance, it has to come from somewhere. Your mind has to draw those words from somewhere. If instead the OP dropped the N word in an excited utterance I don’t think anyone would say, “no harm no foul” We would acknowledge that that word came from somewhere and the person needs to stamp that out even in their inner dialogue.

I have never heard your definition of sin in a Catholic setting. Can you provide me some information as to this idea of something being a sin, but not a sin?

 

[atheistgirl]

I couldn’t help but take off my shoes. After I took off my shoes, I took off my socks,

This. Right here.

You’d be out of my office so fast…

Do you know the conditions required for an action to be a sin?

Do you know the difference between mortal and venial sin?

Do you really think you have sinned?

Speak to your priest, but try and keep it short - maybe leave out the sartorial detail?

St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 1,6L 35,1982.

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

Sarah x

 

[underacloud]

But, in this case the person did not yell out random sounds that just happened to form certain words. They actually said it which even though that is an excited utterance, it has to come from somewhere. Your mind has to draw those words from somewhere. If instead the OP dropped the N word in an excited utterance I don’t think anyone would say, “no harm no foul” We would acknowledge that that word came from somewhere and the person needs to stamp that out even in their inner dialogue.

Aren’t we saying the same thing?

I have never heard your definition of sin in a Catholic setting. Can you provide me some information as to this idea of something being a sin, but not a sin?

The catechism outlines sin and says that there are acts, independant of intentions or circumstances, that are objectively wrong/evil. These are sins, but the person may lack cuplability for commiting the sin…thus there is no personal/subjective sin.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[underacloud]

I have never heard your definition of sin in a Catholic setting. Can you provide me some information as to this idea of something being a sin, but not a sin?

As well as the above I posted, this is best understood by the classification of sin as being material sin vs formal sin. Material sin is something that is wrong in and of itself, even though the person doesn’t know it and/or doesn’t choose it, whereas formal sin is something wrong and chosen by the person.

This distinction is discussed here: newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Or more succinctly here: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34791

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Aren’t we saying the same thing?

The catechism outlines sin and says that there are acts, independant of intentions or circumstances, that are objectively wrong/evil. These are sins, but the person may lack cuplability for commiting the sin…thus there is no personal/subjective sin.

No we are not saying the same thing, but we may be talking past each other. You said “no sin.” But then implied there was sin. And yes, a person may lack culpability either partial or full, but you can’t really make that argument here. The person used those words because the person knows those words and how they can be used to express pain or anger.

Again. If the OP dropped the N bomb would you say that “well, the person was excited so it does not count as wrong or offensive.” Because the very fact that they used that word, that their mind went to that word as it’s number one go to word for the situation before a “filter” had time to come into play does not really matter. You would know that the person used the N word as a slur in certain circumstances and that they have done so often enough to condition the mind to do so. To me, this is the perfect example of how bad habits can lead to sin. Better to have custody of your own mind and prevent this from happening even in an excited utterance.

I know we are surrounded by blasphemy and such all the time, even on the TV or radio. Or even at work (where the OP was) But that does not excuse one’s misuse of the Holy Name. There is a reason you never hear a Muslim use Allah’s name casually or flippantly, even in excitement. Perhaps we should look less at the fact that it happened, and more toward the OP finding a way to root it out and this being the go-to word for pain and anger. And to do that, one has to acknowledge the sin, and to do that, one needs to go to confession.

One of my pet peeves (and I may have picked on you for it) is when people feel the need to either make the decision about sin for the person (by saying it is not a sin) or absolve it without the real authority to do so. It just is not your place. The proper response is to tell the person to talk to their priest in confession. With the exception of the ridiculous or scrupulous (of which there are both on these forums) But it is neither your burden, not your job to pick up the responsibility for a persons sin (or non sin) by telling them if it is not a sin or it is a sin…

This one in particular is pretty cut and dried because it is addressed directly in the commandments. And since it pertains directly to God himself, it is potential offense against the “Greatest Command” I am not willing to tell the OP they are OK and there is not sin when the stakes for both them, and me, are eternal…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

As well as the above I posted, this is best understood by the classification of sin as being material sin vs formal sin. Material sin is something that is wrong in and of itself, even though the person doesn’t know it and/or doesn’t choose it, whereas formal sin is something wrong and chosen by the person.

This distinction is discussed here: newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Or more succinctly here: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34791

Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therefore sinful, but a person does it either without knowing it is wrong, or under duress and without internal consent to the evil.

Yes, this is not what I was questioning.

But are you implying the OP uttered those words

either without knowing it is wrong, or under duress and without internal consent to the evil.

I must have missed the part where a gun was to their head, or when the devil entered them and moved their lips and vocal cords to make those words come out. Both of those things could remove culpability all together. My guess is that you are saying that internal consent does not apply if you are in pain or angry. But this is not true as exampled by the N word example. And even if you could make the case that the OPs situation applies to your interpretation of this, are you really willing to claim your opinion as authority by declaring “no sin”

Ask yourself this would you say “if it is a sin, I will take the responsibility for that for you in front of God?” Your answer should be no. And though probably well intentioned, keeping anyone from the sacrament of reconciliation in any way including telling them they did not sin, is problematic. The OP asked if they did something wrong. The answer is a clear yes.

 

[underacloud]

No we are not saying the same thing, but we may be talking past each other. You said “no sin.” But then implied there was sin. And yes, a person may lack culpability either partial or full, but you can’t really make that argument here. The person used those words because the person knows those words and how they can be used to express pain or anger.

There both is sin and (perhaps) is not sin. There is definitely sin in the material/objective sense. But whether this is formal sin depends on the intent, or choice, of the OP in commiting it. The OP described it as accidental, not purposeful, and that is the basis for what I have said.

Again. If the OP dropped the N bomb would you say that “well, the person was excited so it does not count as wrong or offensive.” Because the very fact that they used that word, that their mind went to that word as it’s number one go to word for the situation before a “filter” had time to come into play does not really matter. You would know that the person used the N word as a slur in certain circumstances and that they have done so often enough to condition the mind to do so. To me, this is the perfect example of how bad habits can lead to sin. Better to have custody of your own mind and prevent this from happening even in an excited utterance.

As I’ve said above, if we do or say something offensive, even if we didn’t mean to, we apologise. Yes, bad habits are to be avoided. Sometimes those habits are not of our own making (eg perhaps it is our upbringing), so breaking them can be hard.

One of my pet peeves (and I may have picked on you for it) is when people feel the need to either make the decision about sin for the person (by saying it is not a sin) or absolve it without the real authority to do so. It just is not your place. The proper response is to tell the person to talk to their priest in confession. With the exception of the ridiculous or scrupulous (of which there are both on these forums) But it is neither your burden, not your job to pick up the responsibility for a persons sin (or non sin) by telling them if it is not a sin or it is a sin…

This one in particular is pretty cut and dried because it is addressed directly in the commandments. And since it pertains directly to God himself, it is potential offense against the “Greatest Command” I am not willing to tell the OP they are OK and there is not sin when the stakes for both them, and me, are eternal…

The objective sin is yes cut and dry. The OP said there was no intent and on that basis I said what I said; you cannot accidentally sin (commit formal/personal sin). I believe it to be entirely correct, the only caveat being that it is based on what the OP has described.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There both is sin and (perhaps) is not sin. There is definitely sin in the material/objective sense. But whether this is formal sin depends on the intent, or choice, of the OP in commiting it. The OP described it as accidental, not purposeful, and that is the basis for what I have said.

As I’ve said above, if we do or say something offensive, even if we didn’t mean to, we apologise. Yes, bad habits are to be avoided. Sometimes those habits are not of our own making (eg perhaps it is our upbringing), so breaking them can be hard.

The objective sin is yes cut and dry. The OP said there was no intent and on that basis I said what I said; you cannot accidentally sin (commit formal/personal sin). I believe it to be entirely correct, the only caveat being that it is based on what the OP has described.

How do you accidentally utter a word? That is impossible. The will engages the brain which engages the vocal cords which engages the sounds put together to make a word that means something. The OP did not yell “pine!” Or “internet” or “Mike damn it!” they yelled a chosen word. Chosen in haste, yes, but accidental? nope.

All of this between you and I could actually just be solved with two words a qualifier when you say “no sin” “MIGHT BE no sin”

yes, it is petty, yes it is semantical but it is actually an important distinction.

If you believe what you are arguing go ahead and promise that you will take responsibility for any culpability the OP may have full or partial in front of God. That the OP did not sin, and if the OP did, you will take the punishment. Because, like I said, though we all want to make people feel good and take away guilt from them, we just do not have the authority.

 

[underacloud]

How do you accidentally utter a word? That is impossible. The will engages the brain which engages the vocal cords which engages the sounds put together to make a word that means something. The OP did not yell “pine!” Or “internet” or “Mike damn it!” they yelled a chosen word. Chosen in haste, yes, but accidental? nope.

All of this between you and I could actually just be solved with two words a qualifier when you say “no sin” “MIGHT BE no sin”

yes, it is petty, yes it is semantical but it is actually an important distinction.

If you believe what you are arguing go ahead and promise that you will take responsibility for any culpability the OP may have full or partial in front of God. That the OP did not sin, and if the OP did, you will take the punishment. Because, like I said, though we all want to make people feel good and take away guilt from them, we just do not have the authority.

Obviously I can’t promise that. But this is a moral theology forum and it is appropriate to discuss the principles and explain the Church’s teaching.

My post was in direct response to what the OP asked here:

I’m not sure if an accidental, non purposeful breaking of a commandment is something serious, but if it is, I want to know.

As I said, I’m working from the premise that the OP gave - that they did not purposefully (they also said “accidentally”, not my words) say what they did.

As you point out, there may be a bad habit here that needs to be addressed. But bad habits are not mortal sins. Mortal sin - which is the only sin the requires confession - only occurs with full consent of the will. And I stand by what I said above: “Without intent, there is no sin.”

So I’ll stand by the explanation I have given and the OP can stand by what they say regarding intent.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Obviously I can’t promise that. But this is a moral theology forum and it is appropriate to discuss the principles and explain the Church’s teaching.

My post was in direct response to what the OP asked here:

As I said, I’m working from the premise that the OP gave - that they did not purposefully (they also said “accidentally”, not my words) say what they did.

As you point out, there may be a bad habit here that needs to be addressed. But bad habits are not mortal sins. Mortal sin - which is the only sin the requires confession - only occurs with full consent of the will. And I stand by what I said above: “Without intent, there is no sin.”

So I’ll stand by the explanation I have given and the OP can stand by what they say regarding intent.

Again While we might say “accidentally said” In every day life, that is not the same “accidental” as we are speaking about theologically. For instance I could trip and fall and my forehead hits four certain letters on the keyboard that spells a bad word. That is accidental. But to put the words into the air requires full consent of the will (with the exception of sleeptalk or medication) The OP cannot accidentally say something. Just as I cannot accidentally call someone the N word. It is impossible.

Why is that so hard to understand?

How about you just say " I should have used a qualifier" And we move on…

It is real easy except for the abandonment of stubborn pride. Which is my downfall a lot too!

 

[underacloud]

Again While we might say “accidentally said” In every day life, that is not the same “accidental” as we are speaking about theologically. For instance I could trip and fall and my forehead hits four certain letters on the keyboard that spells a bad word. That is accidental. But to put the words into the air requires full consent of the will (with the exception of sleeptalk or medication) The OP cannot accidentally say something. Just as I cannot accidentally call someone the N word. It is impossible.

Why is that so hard to understand?

How about you just say " I should have used a qualifier" And we move on…

It is real easy except for the abandonment of stubborn pride. Which is my downfall a lot too!

I have used a qualifier. I said that it all is based on what the OP said regarding intent. That part is on the OP, not me.

Moreover, I completely disagree with how you would interpret “full consent of the will”. The other way this is termed is “sufficient reflection” (lacking when something is blurted out). Perhaps for this reason alone the OP should go and discuss this with a priest, who does have the authority (that I lack, other than the quotes I offer from the Catechism) to tell them that when you stub your toe and blurt something out, that does not meet the requirement of “full consent of the will”.

Yes, let’s move on…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have used a qualifier. I said that it all is based on what the OP said regarding intent. That part is on the OP, not me.

Moreover, I completely disagree with how you would interpret “full consent of the will”. The other way this is termed is “sufficient reflection” (lacking when something is blurted out). Perhaps for this reason alone the OP should go and discuss this with a priest, who does have the authority (that I lack, other than the quotes I offer from the Catechism) to tell them that when you stub your toe and blurt something out, that does not meet the requirement of “full consent of the will”.

Yes, let’s move on…

OP:

Go to confession.

 

[underacloud]

There’s no need for bad manners. Please avoid using this disrespectful emoticon, even if you disagree with another poster’s opinions.