Do people really go to Hell for masturbation and using birth control?

[AndyF]

setter:

Who is tossing out what rule book? I believe that your persistent conjectures without returning to the foundation,…

And how do you know I give those conjectures substance by actually living it.? I can speculate as much as I please, and the Church is pleased, and I can place on hold certain beliefs I have until some evidence is supplied that allows me to release those restraints. These are all copesetic within the norms that are outlined in De Fide’s Opinio Tolerata. St Augustine wained in and out of certainty so many times it would make your head spin.

But, yes, you have discovered through my posts that this particular Catholic has an issue with Justice being a part of Deposit of the Faith. But that is of lessor importance in this forum than to ensure my sources are accurate and my propositions are sound, and I have given sound reasons why it should, based on that pool of information supplied to me by Mother Church, as I refuse to look elsewhere as I trust it.

“Exceptions of the Rule” are warning signs to scrutinize in every just system, and everyone’s credentials to do so is the permission from the Holy Spirit.

“The Church itself asks no man to strangle his reason, and says it is heresy to say he ought to. Nor must Catholics accept anything however unlikely. If a thing seems unlikely, they should suspend their judgement until they secure evidence of it’s truth or falsisity, then decide accordingly” Late Card. F.J.Sheen,Frs Rumble and Carty.

The Church has no basis or reason to “become the new Moses” as it has …

Good, then She could do so in the name of Jesus, as it does so
now. Still, lack of interest to put it in effect doesn’t make it unreasonable and a non-candidate for implementation. As I said or implied, what She does now is commendable.

Your appeal to OT exceptions do not apply to the Church today.

My appeal is to the principle, which still applies and are still sound.

The Church speaks and teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals…

It can also put in effect.

Andy

 

[setter]

setter:

And how do you know I give those conjectures substance by actually living it.? I can speculate as much as I please, and the Church is pleased, and I can place on hold certain beliefs I have until some evidence is supplied that allows me to release those restraints. These are all copesetic within the norms that are outlined in De Fide’s Opinio Tolerata. St Augustine wained in and out of certainty so many times it would make your head spin.

But, yes, you have discovered through my posts that this particular Catholic has an issue with Justice being a part of Deposit of the Faith. But that is of lessor importance in this forum than to ensure my sources are accurate and my propositions are sound, and I have given sound reasons why it should, based on that pool of information supplied to me by Mother Church, as I refuse to look elsewhere as I trust it.

“Exceptions of the Rule” are warning signs to scrutinize in every just system, and everyone’s credentials to do so is the permission from the Holy Spirit.

“The Church itself asks no man to strangle his reason, and says it is heresy to say he ought to. Nor must Catholics accept anything however unlikely. If a thing seems unlikely, they should suspend their judgement until they secure evidence of it’s truth or falsisity, then decide accordingly” Late Card. F.J.Sheen,Frs Rumble and Carty.

I am sure that the good Cardinal would likewise agree with this CCC citation:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC)

Good, then She could do so in the name of Jesus, as it does so
now. Still, lack of interest to put it in effect doesn’t make it unreasonable and a non-candidate for implementation. As I said or implied, what She does now is commendable.

My appeal is to the principle, which still applies and are still sound.

It can also put in effect.

Andy

Perhaps providing a concrete example as pertains to Church teaching in matters of faith and morals would purposely serve this discussion by enfleshing the bones (construct) of your argument.

 

[AndyF]

If I am reading your posts correctly it seems you want to point out that the law is a burden and those who point out the importance of obeying the law are placing an undue burden on others?

Hi Fix, thanks for jumping in.

No, burden no, more restrictive, perhaps. I’m concentrating on the way to help people of today for reasons that surpass in virtue the excuse given to obtain that same help back in OT. That help would come by God giving permission to relax the rules.

I guess I’m of mixed feeling right now.

One, I can’t see why the favors in terms of changing laws to suit the desires of His people cannot be continued in this unique world of today that brings on a whole new set of distinct more worthy problems. Two, I can see and understand the sense of bringing them to perfection by Jesus, and I know some think I disagree with this.

The question has come down to the principles of why these two categories of laws, ie: divorce and polygamy, are suddenly inappropriate. I guess we are at a stage of studying what decisions contribute to a “well ordered family”, as the NT change was brought about to bring this about, but was absent but known to God, in the OT ruling. My argument is that a family by anology who puts aside conception while a war was on, was conforming to this general “well ordered rule”; setter disagrees.

Anyway, thats the gist of these posts.

Andy

 

[setter]

My argument is that a family by anology who puts aside conception while a war was on, was conforming to this general “well ordered rule”; setter disagrees.

Does the method of birth control make a moral difference in your construct?

 

[AndyF]

I am sure that the good Cardinal would likewise agree with this CCC citation:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC)

Good thing this is a milestone, hey?

Perhaps providing a concrete example as pertains to Church teaching in matters of faith and morals would purposely serve this discussion by enfleshing the bones (construct) of your argument.

 

[AndyF]

Does the method of birth control make a moral difference in your construct?

I presented a proposition for the consideration of this new implementation. Those who carry it out would access how
that can occur factoring in the benefits for the common good.

Andy

 

[setter]

I presented a proposition for the consideration of this new implementation. Those who carry it out would access how
that can occur factoring in the benefits for the common good.

Andy

Your presented – “the benefits for the common good” – as the criteria for determining what means one would use in choosing to regulate birth (birth control), is not in good keeping with the Catholic principles for guiding one’s conscience and making morally licit decisions regarding “would access how that can occur”. This is what the Church teaches the faithful:

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it; (CCC)

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving). (CCC)

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC)

 

[fix]

Hi Fix, thanks for jumping in.

No, burden no, more restrictive, perhaps. I’m concentrating on the way to help people of today for reasons that surpass in virtue the excuse given to obtain that same help back in OT. That help would come by God giving permission to relax the rules.

I guess I’m of mixed feeling right now.

One, I can’t see why the favors in terms of changing laws to suit the desires of His people cannot be continued in this unique world of today that brings on a whole new set of distinct more worthy problems. Two, I can see and understand the sense of bringing them to perfection by Jesus, and I know some think I disagree with this.

The question has come down to the principles of why these two categories of laws, ie: divorce and polygamy, are suddenly inappropriate. I guess we are at a stage of studying what decisions contribute to a “well ordered family”, as the NT change was brought about to bring this about, but was absent but known to God, in the OT ruling. My argument is that a family by anology who puts aside conception while a war was on, was conforming to this general “well ordered rule”; setter disagrees.

Anyway, thats the gist of these posts.

Andy

The OT law was imperfect. The new law cannot be changed and I am unsure why you think it can be?

…The Law of Christ makes us freer - for a far greater destiny. The Law of Christ is a divine gift, like the Law of Moses, though incomparably superior. If the Jews, in their better moments, were grateful for the Law of Moses, we should be far more grateful for the Law of Christ. But our gratitude has to rest precisely on the fact that the Law of Christ *is *a law, telling us what to do and what not to do. The Law of Christ, as any other law, has its objective content and its demands: at times hard demands…

Christians have the right to all the means of becoming God’s children (cf. c. 213). As a result of their personal sanctification, they have the right and mission to exercise their royal priesthood, lifting up the world to God (cf. c. 225). The gift of law and the need for law appear precisely in the fact that the law expresses and protects our access to Christ. We will look on that law as a gift in the measure in which we want to come to Christ and possess what he has to give us.

Christ’s Truth stands behind the teaching of his Church, just as Christ’s Will stands behind the authority of his Church. Christ’s Truth cannot lead men into error; we have that guarantee. But we have no guarantee that Christ’s Will may not lead men into trials and hardship: the hardship, among others, of being called on to obey in something that they find unreasonable and perhaps personally repugnant. He himself went that way. He became obedient unto death (Phil 2:8) even though he found it repugnant in the extreme (Mk 14:33-36). Vatican II says that the Church, and therefore all Christians, “must walk the road Christ himself walked, a way of poverty and obedience, of service and self-sacrifice even to death” (AG 5)…

Law as a Gift

 

[patches]

In all respect I think part of the misunderstanding is using terms like weakness here. We will not lose salvation simply because of a weakness. It is a deliberate choice to reject God, often through particular concrete actions that are evil.

Avoiding using terms like “weakness” in a discussion of this kind of sin seems rather absurd to me. The circumstances surrounding actual sin are rarely as clearly defined as those in dispassionate discussions of objective morality. I understand where you are coming in terms of the logical implications, but if you’ll permit me to use a football metaphor, the x’s and o’s in the playbook rarely match the action in the “trenches.” Frankly, it’s hard to imagine weakness not being front and center in any discussion of sin, and particularly this one.
I’m not questioning the church’s formal teaching regarding this point. But giving doctrine it’s proper respect while taking the implications to their logical conclusions, in view of the fact that one will not lose one’s salvation “simply because of weakness,” --it would be hard not conclude that the objective conditions necessary for commiting a mortal sin may not be all that easily met, particularly with regard to young people. (i.e. --try getting a hormone crazed teenager to give the full consent of their will to anything.) Unless a good deal of consideration is given to the role human weakness plays in this, it’s a stretch to consider this to be equivalent to “a deliberate choice to reject God.”

 

[fix]

Avoiding using terms like “weakness” in a discussion of this kind of sin seems rather absurd to me. The circumstances surrounding actual sin are rarely as clearly defined as those in dispassionate discussions of objective morality. I understand where you are coming in terms of the logical implications, but if you’ll permit me to use a football metaphor, the x’s and o’s in the playbook rarely match the action in the “trenches.” Frankly, it’s hard to imagine weakness not being front and center in any discussion of sin, and particularly this one.
I’m not questioning the church’s formal teaching regarding this point. But giving doctrine it’s proper respect while taking the implications to their logical conclusions, in view of the fact that one will not lose one’s salvation “simply because of weakness,” --it would be hard not conclude that the objective conditions necessary for commiting a mortal sin may not be all that easily met, particularly with regard to young people. (i.e. --try getting a hormone crazed teenager to give the full consent of their will to anything.) Unless a good deal of consideration is given to the role human weakness plays in this, it’s a stretch to consider this to be equivalent to “a deliberate choice to reject God.”

If I am reading you correctly it seems your concern is not that one mortal sin will make one worthy of damnation, but what actually constitutes committing a mortal sin?

Every mortal sin is a rejection of God. It does not mean each time we commit one we sit down and formally say to ourselves I want to reject God today and lose my salvation.

Through certain acts we commit mortal sin which includes a rejection of God as the quotes which I provided state.

Yes, Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

If you want to use specific examples we can, but we obviously cannot know the disposition of any one person.

I do not accept that a young person is incapable of committing a mortal sin due to hormones. They have free will.

 

[Orionthehunter]

If I am reading you correctly it seems your concern is not that one mortal sin will make one worthy of damnation, but what actually constitutes committing a mortal sin?

Every mortal sin is a rejection of God. It does not mean each time we commit one we sit down and formally say to ourselves I want to reject God today and lose my salvation.

Through certain acts we commit mortal sin which includes a rejection of God as the quotes which I provided state.

Yes, Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

If you want to use specific examples we can, but we obviously cannot know the disposition of any one person.

I do not accept that a young person is incapable of committing a mortal sin due to hormones. They have free will.

I think there are elements of the truth in both what Fix and Patches are saying.

Because masturbation draws too many pictures in our minds that are best left alone, I’d like to use a different example.

Every month for a couple of days, my house of two daughters and one wife was Hell as they all got on the same cycle (I always wondered if maybe the Pill could be used in this situation just to get them on different days as the alternative seemed to just create an evironment for sin!). During this time, the yelling, screaming, disrespect, and many other overt signs of evil is some of the worst conduct I’ve ever seen by these three women I love dearly. Taken by themself, there were many objective grave acts done (mortal sins) to each other.

While they acted with full knowledge of what they were doing, I don’t think anyone who has been in this situation would assert they did them with full consent. The emotional imbalances just built on each other to make every situation a potential powder keg. Because these new hormones are new experiences to teen boys, they haven’t been able to fully develop all the mechanism’s/defenses to this new temptation which probably diminishes consent just as my daughters get better at handling their monthly cross as they age. I think this is the point that Patches was trying to make with regard to the subject of this thread.

At the same time, Fix is asserting the higher calling to overcome our weaknesses. It isn’t an excuse. And using it as an excuse can “hardwire” this inappropriate response to these natural feelings. Instead, we have to always stress how it is wrong appealing to their intellect so they will commit their will to developing positive mechanisms/defenses to this natural feeling. Get them to understand that it isn’t the feeling that is wrong but resorting to masturbation as the remedy.

 

[fix]

I think there are elements of the truth in both what Fix and Patches are saying.

Because masturbation draws too many pictures in our minds that are best left alone, I’d like to use a different example.

Every month for a couple of days, my house of two daughters and one wife was Hell as they all got on the same cycle (I always wondered if maybe the Pill could be used in this situation just to get them on different days as the alternative seemed to just create an evironment for sin!). During this time, the yelling, screaming, disrespect, and many other overt signs of evil is some of the worst conduct I’ve ever seen by these three women I love dearly. Taken by themself, there were many objective grave acts done (mortal sins) to each other.

While they acted with full knowledge of what they were doing, I don’t think anyone who has been in this situation would assert they did them with full consent. The emotional imbalances just built on each other to make every situation a potential powder keg. Because these new hormones are new experiences to teen boys, they haven’t been able to fully develop all the mechanism’s/defenses to this new temptation which probably diminishes consent just as my daughters get better at handling their monthly cross as they age. I think this is the point that Patches was trying to make with regard to the subject of this thread.

At the same time, Fix is asserting the higher calling to overcome our weaknesses. It isn’t an excuse. And using it as an excuse can “hardwire” this inappropriate response to these natural feelings. Instead, we have to always stress how it is wrong appealing to their intellect so they will commit their will to developing positive mechanisms/defenses to this natural feeling. Get them to understand that it isn’t the feeling that is wrong but resorting to masturbation as the remedy.

I don’t disagree with any of this. I may be misunderstanding the arguments, or not presenting my position well. From this thread I got the impression there is a notion that certain acts really are not that bad and certainly not going make one lose their salvation. My position is this is a very dangerous way to live.

We all agree no one knows how another’s soul appears to God. We ought not judge that. My point is certain acts are objectively wrong. If we do them we endanger our relationship with God. Whether we give full consent to the sin is another matter, but we should not dismiss these grave acts simply because we believe they are not so bad.

It seems to all go back to properly understanding what comprises mortal sin.

 

[Sailboat]

I think there are elements of the truth in both what Fix and Patches are saying.

Because masturbation draws too many pictures in our minds that are best left alone, I’d like to use a different example.

Every month for a couple of days, my house of two daughters and one wife was Hell as they all got on the same cycle (I always wondered if maybe the Pill could be used in this situation just to get them on different days as the alternative seemed to just create an evironment for sin!). During this time, the yelling, screaming, disrespect, and many other overt signs of evil is some of the worst conduct I’ve ever seen by these three women I love dearly. Taken by themself, there were many objective grave acts done (mortal sins) to each other.

While they acted with full knowledge of what they were doing, I don’t think anyone who has been in this situation would assert they did them with full consent. The emotional imbalances just built on each other to make every situation a potential powder keg. Because these new hormones are new experiences to teen boys, they haven’t been able to fully develop all the mechanism’s/defenses to this new temptation which probably diminishes consent just as my daughters get better at handling their monthly cross as they age. I think this is the point that Patches was trying to make with regard to the subject of this thread.

At the same time, Fix is asserting the higher calling to overcome our weaknesses. It isn’t an excuse. And using it as an excuse can “hardwire” this inappropriate response to these natural feelings. Instead, we have to always stress how it is wrong appealing to their intellect so they will commit their will to developing positive mechanisms/defenses to this natural feeling. Get them to understand that it isn’t the feeling that is wrong but resorting to masturbation as the remedy.

Ha ha, great post! And great point too!

 

[Orionthehunter]

I don’t disagree with any of this. I may be misunderstanding the arguments, or not presenting my position well. From this thread I got the impression there is a notion that certain acts really are not that bad and certainly not going make one lose their salvation. My position is this is a very dangerous way to live.

We all agree no one knows how another’s soul appears to God. We ought not judge that. My point is certain acts are objectively wrong. If we do them we endanger our relationship with God. Whether we give full consent to the sin is another matter, but** we should not dismiss these grave acts simply because we believe they are not so bad.**
It seems to all go back to properly understanding what comprises mortal sin.

To me the greater danger is dismissing them because we can’t “control” ourselves. This is the point that I thought you made quite well. We all have crosses that require us to dedicate our mind, will, and God’s help to overcome.

For some, masturbation is that cross. Because we can’t give full consent, committing a grave matter is still a sin (venial but a sin). The Chruch warns us about how the repeated commission of venial sin can be as damaging to our soul as a mortal sin as the venial sins cummulate to a point where we have distanced us from God such that we can no longer even avoid mortal sins. Maybe this is what you are trying to say when you criticize people for saying they “really aren’t that bad.”

Even if there are factors that impact my ability to give my full consent, I have knowledge that they are wrong. In this situation, this is where the graces and strenght from prayer, sacraments and the Holy Spirit will help me overcome my weakness.

 

[fix]

To me the greater danger is dismissing them because we can’t “control” ourselves. This is the point that I thought you made quite well. We all have crosses that require us to dedicate our mind, will, and God’s help to overcome.

For some, masturbation is that cross. Because we can’t give full consent, committing a grave matter is still a sin (venial but a sin). The Chruch warns us about how the repeated commission of venial sin can be as damaging to our soul as a mortal sin as the venial sins cummulate to a point where we have distanced us from God such that we can no longer even avoid mortal sins. Maybe this is what you are trying to say when you criticize people for saying they “really aren’t that bad.”

Even if there are factors that impact my ability to give my full consent, I have knowledge that they are wrong. In this situation, this is where the graces and strenght from prayer, sacraments and the Holy Spirit will help me overcome my weakness.

Ceratinly well said. What about this? Let me use an example where a man goes to confession and makes a good and valid confession. He leaves and sees a woman walking. He deires her and begins to fantasize and gives in to impure thoughts. Not simply temptation. He commits lust in his heart. He gets hit by a car and dies right then.

From this thread I get the impresion some would say hey no big deal. He lived a just life, went to confession frequently, and so what he committed a little lust briefly. Is it fair he merits hell for that little act?

 

[AndyF]

Do you have any source citations for this assertion/understanding of yours? I would be interested in learning more as it is not my understanding that the man constructed and version of western justice is sanctioned implicitly or explicitly by God.

Yes. The Church tells us this data is fact, so we will need to respect what it says. See references to the Pentecost.

Do you disagree with the Holy Spirit’s portion of the covenant where it sanctions, thus binding in heaven, by evidence of our Church’s decision of agreement with, and approval of, our Democratic System of Justice.?

Do you disagree that the Holy Spirit promised to Bind in heaven whatever the Church binds on earth? Specifically, if the Church allows in principle man’s democratic system of justice, do you disagree that this should not be bound in heaven.? Do you recall any addendum wording in scripture by the Holy Spirit that states that this case is an exception?

Do you feel the Church finds morally wrong, by authority of our system of democratic justice, for man to monitor his system, to have evidence of the mechanism of justice in full view for his perusal, to be allowed his day in court, in front of a jury, and be allowed to present his case, along with evidence, and have the full instument of the court at his disposal?

Based on the sound devine infallible reasoning thus outlined, is it unreasonable to desire a system of Justice similar to ours applied to us in our final judgement?

Andy

 

[setter]

If I am reading you correctly it seems your concern is not that one mortal sin will make one worthy of damnation, but what actually constitutes committing a mortal sin?

Every mortal sin is a rejection of God. It does not mean each time we commit one we sit down and formally say to ourselves I want to reject God today and lose my salvation.

Through certain acts we commit mortal sin which includes a rejection of God as the quotes which I provided state.

Yes, Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

If you want to use specific examples we can, but we obviously cannot know the disposition of any one person.

I do not accept that a young person is incapable of committing a mortal sin due to hormones. They have free will.

We are all called as believers to imitate Christ, including overcoming weakness and resisting temptation to sin. This being the case, one must wonder where “weakness” enters and “consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” mitigate or remove culpability, and as St. Paul admonished how many “have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” and risk the “root of bitterness” working against charity in the soul.

“…let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. …Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled;” Hebrews 12: 1-4, 12-15

 

[fix]

We are all called as believers to imitate Christ, including resisting temptation to sin. This being the case, one must wonder where “weakness” enters and “consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” mitigate or remove culpability, and as St. paul admonished how many “have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” and risk the seed of bitterness working against charity in the soul.

So, my question is the issue in this thread that one mortal sin, like masturabtion, is insufficient to warrant hell or is the issue that these types of acts do not always become mortal due to lack of consent?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Ceratinly well said. What about this? Let me use an example where a man goes to confession and makes a good and valid confession. He leaves and sees a woman walking. He deires her and begins to fantasize and gives in to impure thoughts. Not simply temptation. He commits lust in his heart. He gets hit by a car and dies right then.

From this thread I get the impresion some would say hey no big deal. He lived a just life, went to confession frequently, and so what he committed a little lust briefly. Is it fair he merits hell for that little act?

The Jimmy Carter sin (lust in your heart). This is actually a great opportunity to distinguish a Catholic vs. a non-Catholic view of sin. Many non-Catholics don’t distinguish sin by their gravity. For this reason, Jimmy essentially considered his thoughts equal to as if he had actually had sex w/ her.

This is not a Catholic view. We understand that we are body, mind, and spirit. No matter what evil we might think in our minds, it is not as grave as if we act on them. In fact, the Church talks about it being redemptive when we resist our thoughts and not act on these thoughts. It is this resistance that mitigates the gravity.

Additionally, I find your extreme example impossible. If this man had made a good confession, I can’t imagine how without other sin building up upon him he could make a full knowledge and full consent rejection of God just moments after confession. I think that mortal sin becomes possible when we allow venial sin to so damage our relationship with God that one has the temerity to commit a mortal sin.

 

[AndyF]

setter:

Addiction lessens culpability.

Addiction is one of the many compounding effects of the sin, not a factor in favor of lessening culpability. Also see Mat 12,43

Andy