Grave vs Serious

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphonsus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alphonsus1

Guest
Fr. Chad, a professor and Ph.D., claims that there had is no theological difference between “Grave” and “serious” reasons, for circumstances necessary to justify an act, or for cooperation with an evil act. Is this claim True? Is the distinction a modernist invention?

Please comment if you have studied Church history and have substantial knowledge of this claim.
 
Last edited:
1 everyone can comment. Period. Your exclusion of posters that dont meet your qualifications at best comes off rude.
2. Are we talking about the use of these words in Church documents? If so, what is the common language usage of the words before the english translation?
 
Grave and Serious have subtle, but, not substantial differences in “church-speak”. In English translations they are basically interchangable.
 
I have read that this is more common among theologians of the rigorist bent and I have read arguments against using the two terms interchangeably (for example, in questions of whether a couple licitly used NFP). There is a reason why different words are used. Many of these documents are very precise and grave is a very high standard and has a very significant meaning. Serious is a notably less strict standard.

BTW—I believe you mean Fr. Ripperger, who is most certainly of the rigorist opinion on many matters. But his opinion is not the only one, and I would wager that most theologians would disagree with some of Fr. Ripperger’s more rigorist positions.

Also, when translating documents from Latin or some other language into English, sometimes the meanings are subtly changed.
 
How is it rude to ask for advice from people who have studied a particular topic?
 
Last edited:
This is a public forum. If you wish to limit those who answer you would do well to find a forum where Theologians take questions. I do not know of such a forum, maybe there is a sub Reddit?
 
First, while I do not agree with everything Fr. Chad says, his advice is generally good.

For your point about NFP, it appears that Pope Pius XII uses “grave” and “serious” interchangeably… refer to the capitalized words in this authoritative text, Address to Midwives, from Pope Pius XII.

“SERIOUS motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life… If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such GRAVE reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”

However, the Catechism moved away from using serious, to “just,” “serious,” “proportionally serious,” and in Humanae Vitae says “well grounded” and “reasonable” motives. For this reason, the Church has definitely moved away from Pope Pius XII’s language of grave. And the Holy See does not appear to be headed back to that language. So “serious” and “very solid” is the most probable opinion.

However my point remains: do you have specific evidence of a different meaning (before 1900) when “grave” and “serious” were used? Given so many new “changes” are indeed in contradiction to some teaching somewhere, the conservatives are typically right, if you accept everything in the Magisterium. But I won’t form a strong opinion on this until I study this more. Let me know your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The grave and serious/debate should be a short one. It’s almost as if theologians and linguists have never met. Looking at the many Church approved translations will give an answer. 1st we check the romance languages that closely follow the Latin base. Sometimes there are differences in the words or the words are used interrchangably in the same subjects. This would indicate a synonym. But if you really want to get to the theological intent you would explore the non romantic translations because this would indicate if there was an intentional difference in the terms.
I’m no linguist. Far from it. I’m a monoglot and a poor one at that. But this is how one would logically find the INTENT.

Grave matter vs serious matter in normal conversation would mean the same thing.
 
Last edited:
You do realize that none of these documents were composed in English, and that translation is an art instead of a science, right?
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
Hoosier-Daddy:
Your exclusion of posters that dont meet your qualifications at best comes off rude.
Click to expand...
He requested comment from certain posters (“Please comment if…”) which is not same as excluding posters.
Click to expand...
As long as (name removed by moderator)ut from others is welcomed. It does not come across well at all.
 
Exclusion vs inclusion is a circumstantial judgment, contingent upon weighing the various costs and benefits. Sometimes asking experts to answer (ex: on some other forum), could be beneficial. But in any case, worrying about whether tiny venial omissions that may violate charity to the smallest degree, is indeed too scrupulous. Stating “please respond if you have studied this topic” is perhaps no sin at all, and at most “micro uncharitable.”

Also, I never realized this was about “exploring with others.” Because I’ve posted and people ask “where is your question,” seeming to imply this forum is about the poster getting advice… more than me making a blog post… for other people to “explore.”

That being said flee from venial sins! But with venial sins, you do not need to be too scrupulous!
 
Last edited:
You are not making sense at all. But we are free to move back to the topic at hand. Can you address the different translations of the usage of grave/serious in Church documents?
 
I think the two terms are basically interchangeable. I have always treated them as such. But the common interpretation is that “grave” is “more serious.”
 
Except that there have been posters here who, when it comes to mortal sin, persist in claiming that there is a category of ‘grave sin’ which is not so serious as mortal sin. So it’s no wonder people get confused.
 
I think the catechism is very consistent, the old terminology of objectively mortal sin has been changed to grave sin. Anything referred to as grave matter/sin is a mortal sin if the person does it willingly and knows it is grave matter.

I have not seen those posts you refer to.
 
Consider yourself lucky 😀 because when it was going on a year or so ago it was fierce. I think the posters who were most intent on presenting ‘grave’ as ‘not mortal sin at all’ have taken a voluntary or involuntary break, but they were quite insistent. I agree with you; I believe that grave matter equals serious matter and that as such when coupled with full knowledge and full consent equals mortal sin.
 
alphonsus1 said:
Because I’ve posted and people ask “where is your question,” seeming to imply this forum is about the poster getting advice… more than me making a blog post… for other people to “explore.”
Click to expand...
Since you now tell us you’re not interested in anything we might have to say in answer to what looked like a question in your OP, allow me to point out that English was one of the less important languages in the Catholic Church until a fairly recent date, say post World War 2. Consequently, if you’re looking for subtle nuances and shades of meaning in documents dating back to 1900 or earlier, you may be wasting your time if you’re only looking at the English translations. Your search would be more fruitful if you were to concentrate on Latin, above all, followed by Italian as a close second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top