Gradual Fall into Mortal Sin...?

[rcuk]

Hi All;

I posted in another thread about breaking one of the commandments- but ‘slowly’. Specifically I was speaking about the fourth commandment- in terms of honoring a father and mother who were continually causing upset and distress. Moving away from them and becoming increasingly angry to a point of severing the relationship.

Due to emotions and some scrupolosicy, I wasn’t sure if my feelings and my actions in being ‘anti’ them in my thoughts and words had led to mortal sin or not. I saw no act which satisfied the three requirements, but I wanted to know if there came a point where one had reached a point where a commandment had been ‘progressively broken’.

Breaking one of the commandments is mortal. So can one get to that point ‘gradually’?

I have pasted below a part of the original post I made, and the follow-up comment by one kind CAF user.

---

"Just to clarify a little. Is it possible to fall gradually into mortal sin, in respect of the fourth commandment? Or would it need to be a one time sin, satisfying the requirements of mitral sin?

More broadly, are the Ten Commandments cut and dry, as it were?

For example, I heard that breaking then Ten Commandments and stealing a loaf of bread to feed ones starving family is not mortal (jimmy akin said this, I think ).

Not the sand thing, of course, but it highlights a degree of breaking a commandment which doesn’t bring a fall from grace.

I don’t know if I’m suffering from scruples maybe.

—Reply to this was as below:—

"bbentrup:

"I think this is one of the best questions ever asked on these forums - gradual sin or at least gradual acts that may constitute sin. While I’m not sure “gradual sin” is the best term, it’s useful enough for now. By the way, this is not strictly a Fourth Commandment issue as the gradual sin concept can appear in any number of contexts, perhaps all of them.

I think the quick response to your question is that there is no such thing as gradual sin. Each moral act must be considered separately. That individual act is either a sin or not and stands on its own facts, not others (though other acts may increase or diminish subjective guilt).

However, it is very, very hard to judge our own conscience at times, even when trying to be as objective as possible. Some people can suggest certain bright lines, but these are never perfect.

For that reason, your question is a great one since recognizing a concept of gradual sin can help properly convict our conscience when we might be able to rationalize away certain problematic behaviors. If a criminal is on trial for 100 acts that are borderline criminal, he is more likely to be adjudged guilty (correctly) than if only on trial for a solitary act.

I’ve experienced, and I don’t think I’m alone on this, a guilty conscience over a series of acts where I can’t firmly say any single one is properly a mortal sin. Therefore this concept of which you speak - gradual sin - helps me affirm that my conscience is in need of repair, and makes me more likely to want to go to confession, makes me much more hesitant to present myself for Holy Communion. I may be entirely innocent of mortal and even venial sin, but I personally feel the balance of the weight of the evidence favors not risking further sin. I’m not sure this last statement is consistent with Catholic faith, perhaps I should be bolder if I’m not absolutely conscious of guilt. I’m just not sure. The propensity of the self to misjudge our conscience frankly scares me.

Perhaps this should be given a separate, clean thread. I keenly anticipate the thoughts of others."

---

So I have re-posted this subject for discussion

 

[rinnie]

When does venial sin lead to mortal sin?

If that is what you are asking here it is.

Say you know that your sin will separate you from God, but you choose to do it anyway. Mortal Sin.

Venial is when you either do not know the extend of your sin, when you find out you confess it. Or things like maybe saying a bad word. Or you get angry, but then are sorry for it. That’s venial, its sin, but no premeditated you could say.

Or someone pulls out in front of you, and you hit the horn and yell. Its wrong, but it does not separate you from God. But say you get so angry you take your car and wreck into the person on purpose. See what I am saying.

 

[Joe_5859]

Venial sin can often lead to mortal sin in a progressive / gradual sort of way in that it makes it easier to choose against God in large matters when we continually choose against Him in smaller matters.

However, I don’t think it could be said that x number of venial sins equals one mortal sin in the sense of some sort of mathematical calculation.

Have you talked to a priest about this or about scrupulosity?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Habitual sin exists because of our proclivity to sin. But it is possible to be so steeped in a sin that we no longer recognize how sinful we are. This might be accomplished mainly by rationalization (pretending to oneself the sin does not exist, or the sin is negligible, or “I can always repent some day in the future before I die.”) I do believe we can gradually become servants of the devil. This might even be the devil’s preferred type of conversion. Subtle and far-reaching, so deep in us that the soul can easily be snatched out and thrown into the fire.

 

[polytropos]

Breaking one of the commandments is mortal. So can one get to that point ‘gradually’?

A number of venial sins will not add up to a mortal sin in general. The Fourth Commandment will still be tough to assess though, in part because honoring your mother and father does not necessarily entail behavior that is appropriate for everyone in all circumstances (whereas the Fifth Commandment, for example, will always prevent murder, malice, gratuitous violence, etc.). As one ages, the requirement that one be obedient to one’s parents would become looser. In cases where parents are irresponsible or hostile, children should still be respectful but that doesn’t mean placing themselves in harm’s way or putting up with abuse.

I really think it would be wise to speak with a priest about the specific case. It is hard to say.

One way that one might seem to approach mortal sin gradually is if one’s subjective culpability varies over time. I can’t really think of an example of this though.

Another case is that certain repeated actions could become slothful and acquire a gravity it did not have before. Indifference toward one’s sin is a sin over and above the action itself.

In the case of the Fourth Commandment, one might engage in some acts that do not violate the Fourth Commandment but put a strain on the child-parent relationship (an adult child distances himself from an abusive parent, for example). But then, suppose there is an action that “pushes” the circumstance over the edge: they have been separated, but the child says something spiteful or inappropriate that does violate the Fourth Commandment.

But in general, a mortal sin will be committed because of a specific action.

More broadly, are the Ten Commandments cut and dry, as it were?

For example, I heard that breaking then Ten Commandments and stealing a loaf of bread to feed ones starving family is not mortal (jimmy akin said this, I think ).

The Ten Commandments are in very large part “cut and dry,” and the bread is not really a counterexample because it is not mortal not because of any looseness in the Ten Commandments but because in the case of dire necessity, taking something you don’t own is not theft.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Ten Commandments are in very large part “cut and dry,” and the bread is not really a counterexample because it is not mortal not because of any looseness in the Ten Commandments but because in the case of dire necessity, taking something you don’t own is not theft.

In cases where one must choose between two wrongs, for examples the wrong of dying from hunger, and the wrong of stealing bread, we are justified in choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[polytropos]

In cases where one must choose between two wrongs, for examples the wrong of dying from hunger, and the wrong of stealing bread, we are justified in choosing the lesser of two evils.

No we are not.

If taking the bread were stealing, then you would not be permitted to do it. Suppose you don’t have a family, so you have no responsibilities to anyone. One should avoid mortal sin. Abstaining from committing a mortal sin (even if that has an unintended bad consequence) is not an evil act, whereas committing an objectively evil act (ie. stealing) will be wrong.

This is a moot point, though, because if one is at risk of dying from hunger, then taking the bread is not stealing. If it were stealing, we would not be able to do it. (This is why this is a bit of an odd case. It is perhaps slightly analogous to the fact that not all killing is murder; not all taking is theft.)

There are cases where one can allow the lesser of two evils, but that does not mean we can choose the lesser of two evils. (So you can sacrifice your life to save the lives of a dozen others, as long as you don’t intend to lose your life. But if a madman told you he would release the dozen only if you shot yourself in the head, you would not be permitted to shoot yourself in the head.)

Another point: You say “in cases where we must choose between two wrongs.” I do not think that such cases where we must choose genuinely arise unless we are culpable. If I make two conflicting promises, I am bound to both even though I cannot fulfill both and therefore will break one of them. But if I haven’t culpably put myself in such a situation, then I should always be able to choose a morally good course of action (which is not to say that there are not negative consequences). One can always abstain from acting if it is impossible to act well. (But then you can imagine circumstances in which the consequences of abstaining are great, ie. martyrdom.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

\There are cases where one can allow the lesser of two evils, but that does not mean we can choose the lesser of two evils. (**So you can sacrifice your life to save the lives of a dozen others, as long as you don’t intend to lose your life. **But if a madman told you he would release the dozen only if you shot yourself in the head, you would not be permitted to shoot yourself in the head.)

What is the difference between shooting yourself in the head to release a dozen and falling on a grenade to save your platoon?

Are you just looking for a fight?

Stealing is stealing (taking someone else’s property without permission), even if you are dying from hunger. What mitigates the guilt is the desperation of the condition prior to the stealing.

By the way, I believe Jesus intended to lose his life to save us all.

 

[Aloysium]

One sees this fall into greater sin with the various addictionst. What starts as an inclination, becomes an act, then an occasional behaviour, growing more a part of one’s life, a pattern of behaviour reaching a point where it is an automatic response, and finally getting to where the person not only actively seeks out the “reward” but structures his life around it. Of course it is not only this self-destruction that one sees, but the falling into other sins such as theft, adultery, lying, destructive acts towards others, even murder.

In relationships, an ongoing acting out, mutual pay-back of hurts is part of a falling into a deep loathing of the other and oneself. Irreconcilable differences I believe is what it is called in divorce court. In thses situations, it is not that anyone typically goes the distance in trying to reconcile. It always seems to be that it is the other person who has to change; that is supposed to make love possible.

Anything can grow. You start sleeping during the mass because the pastor is boring.You start worrying about work or whatever, when you should be participating. It becomes less and less meaningful and you stop attending.

 

[polytropos]

What is the difference between shooting yourself in the head to release a dozen and falling on a grenade to save your platoon?

Are you just looking for a fight?

I’m not looking for a fight.

In both cases, your death is foreseen. However, shooting yourself in the face is an objectively evil act: suicide. (Shooting yourself in the face also will necessitate the intention to kill yourself.) Putting yourself in a dangerous situation is not an objectively evil act, though, and that is what you are doing with the grenade.

The principle of double effect has four criteria which cannot be violated if an act is to be good: the object must be good, the intention must be good, the good consequences must exceed the evil consequences, and the good effect cannot be achieved by means of the bad effect. Shooting yourself in the face violates the first and second, whereas jumping on the grenade does not.

It might seem that jumping on the grenade violates the fourth condition, because your blocking the explosion is what prevents your squad from dying. This is not the case, though; this can be seen by considering the counterfactual situation in which you somehow don’t die. (In this case the counterfactual situation appears about physically impossible, but what is relevant here is causality. The point is a bit clearer if you consider taking a bullet for another person, where it is more likely that you survive.) The explosion would still be blocked. Your dying (the bad effect) is not the means of achieving the good effect. Rather the good effect is achieved by your blocking the explosion.

Another way to see the latter point is that you evaluate the circumstances subjectively. So someone might throw a blank grenade. The good effect is that your platoon survives. They still survive even if the grenade is fake and doesn’t explode; your dying is not what causes them to survive.

Stealing is stealing (taking someone else’s property without permission), even if you are dying from hunger. What mitigates the guilt is the desperation of the condition prior to the stealing.

This is not how the Church understands such an action.

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

By the way, I believe Jesus intended to lose his life to save us all.

Jesus intended to do God’s will. To accept martyrdom is not to intend one’s death. (This is why, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says that he will accept God’s will if it must be. But qua man he didn’t seek out his death itself.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

IJesus intended to do God’s will. To accept martyrdom is not to intend one’s death. (This is why, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says that he will accept God’s will if it must be. But qua man he didn’t seek out his death itself.)

Au contraire!

Jesus was divine as well as human. So he intended to be born, and the only reason for his intending to be born was that he intended to die for us all. This is Catholic teaching. To accept martyrdom is to intend one’s death for a noble cause. He did seek out his death. He threw down the gauntlet when he drove the sinners from the temple, thereby making it plain to the synagogue that they would have to accept him or kill him. He knew they would kill him. And so they did, believing him to be a blasphemer.

 

[polytropos]

Au contraire!

Jesus was divine as well as human. So he intended to be born, and the only reason for his intending to be born was that he intended to die for us all. This is Catholic teaching. To accept martyrdom is to intend one’s death for a noble cause. He did seek out his death. He threw down the gauntlet when he drove the sinners from the temple, thereby making it plain to the synagogue that they would have to accept him or kill him. He knew they would kill him. And so they did, believing him to be a blasphemer.

But foreseeing a consequence is not to intend that consequence. To defy an unjust law, risking the punishment, is not to intend that one be punished.

I do think that Jesus qua God intended that he die, but Jesus qua man accepted it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But foreseeing a consequence is not to intend that consequence. To defy an unjust law, risking the punishment, is not to intend that one be punished.

I do think that Jesus qua God intended that he die, but Jesus qua man accepted it.

Very good.

I do think there is a fine line between risking the punishment and inviting the punishment.

Jesus was no fool. He knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it.