How did the mortal sin - venial sin dichotomy come about?

[HomeschoolDad]

In traditional catechisms, there is a sharp distinction between mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins make the sinner subject to the punishments of hell, and venial sins do not. Some sins are mortal by their very nature, and some sins are not. Some species of sin depend upon parvity of matter — for instance, stealing a large amount is mortally sinful, but stealing a trivial amount, in and of itself, is not. And of course there are the other two conditions — sufficient reflection (“did you know enough about the sin to understand that it is mortal?”) and full consent of the will (“did you have anything within yourself that impaired your will, consciousness, or mental faculties at the time you committed the sin?”).

How did this distinction come about? I ask in part because, as I understand it, Eastern Christians do not necessarily make this dichotomy — their distinctions between various types of sin are fuzzier and more subjective. There has also been the modern tendency in Western Catholicism to refer to “grave” sin, “serious” sin, and so on. I’m not necessarily suggesting that anyone is doing this, but I have to wonder sometimes, if we are on a slippery slope towards saying that some sins, particularly those where an entire lifestyle is involved (contraception, divorce and remarriage without annulment, being an active homosexual, etc.), are “grave but not mortal”. This way, the sinner could continue with their lifestyle, receive communion, possibly not even bring the sin up in confession, because, using this reasoning, they are not going to hell. Serious purgatory time, maybe. Hell, no.

 

[CRM_Brother]

The primary drift of Western moral theology comes from the Church’s response to the moral implication of William of Ockham’s nominalism in the early 14th century. Ockham proposed that moral actions (good and evil acts) were purely reliant on the will of God at that moment. For example, God could decide that it would be moral for a person to murder their neighbor if he wished and the action would not be a sin, simply because God willed it.

The Church rejected this. God is unchanging and metaphysically simple. Thus, God’s will could not be this mutable. It is eternal and unchanging. The idea then formed that, since God’s will was unchanging, man could define rules and gradations of morality which are universal.

Up to this point, both East and West focused on Virtue Ethics. This system looked at morality from a holistic approach. The focus of one’s life was to live a wholly virtuous life in imitation of Christ’s life. With the advent of this universal gradation of morality, the moral focus of the Church turned from promoting overarching virtue to avoiding individual sin as defined by the gradations of morality. It is from these gradations that the differentiation between ‘venial’ and ‘mortal’ sins arose. Those who attempted to define morality in this reducio ad absurdum method became known as the manualists. They were so named because they wrote large manuals for confessors in which they laid out every possible permutation of sin and a corresponding penance for each. The Catechism of the Catholic Church did away with much of the manualist minutia. It preserved the concept of mortal and venial sin but focused more heavily on the virtue ethics of the early Church.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

The difference comes from St Johns words in 1 John 5:16-17 about different kinds of sin and Our Lords worlds in Matthew 5:22-26 about different levels of punishment for sin.

Also Our Lords words in Matthew 12:32 implies that the Jewish audience already believed that some sins can be forgiven in this life and others even in the next life. It appears therefore that only the titles “mortal” and “venial” are new but that the concepts go back even to the times of the old testament.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The primary drift of Western moral theology comes from the Church’s response to the moral implication of William of Ockham’s nominalism in the early 14th century. Ockham proposed that moral actions (good and evil acts) were purely reliant on the will of God at that moment. For example, God could decide that it would be moral for a person to murder their neighbor if he wished and the action would not be a sin, simply because God willed it.

The Church rejected this. God is unchanging and metaphysically simple. Thus, God’s will could not be this mutable. It is eternal and unchanging. The idea then formed that, since God’s will was unchanging, man could define rules and gradations of morality which are universal.

Up to this point, both East and West focused on Virtue Ethics. This system looked at morality from a holistic approach. The focus of one’s life was to live a wholly virtuous life in imitation of Christ’s life. With the advent of this universal gradation of morality, the moral focus of the Church turned from promoting overarching virtue to avoiding individual sin as defined by the gradations of morality. It is from these gradations that the differentiation between ‘venial’ and ‘mortal’ sins arose. Those who attempted to define morality in this reducio ad absurdum method became known as the manualists. They were so named because they wrote large manuals for confessors in which they laid out every possible permutation of sin and a corresponding penance for each. The Catechism of the Catholic Church did away with much of the manualist minutia. It preserved the concept of mortal and venial sin but focused more heavily on the virtue ethics of the early Church.

This is a very erudite response and I thank you for it.

I will confess that, as traditional as I am in my theology and morality (that to which I aspire, not necessarily that which I live — like all pilgrims in the wayfaring state, I have a “sin problem”), I have always been troubled at the idea of an otherwise holy and charitable person, who in spite of themselves, loses their salvation over a single sin, or even a besetting tendency to a certain sin, which keeps them in and out of the confessional week-in and week-out. But we have no guarantees. The “fundamental option” has been rejected time and again by recent Popes — “look at the sinner’s life taken as a whole, look at his heart, not at individual falls from grace or individual sins”. It’s a sweet, compassionate thought, but that doesn’t make it true.

 

[johnnykins]

Hope often seems to me to be the most overlooked theological virtue. Whatever theological system, Hope is a gift from God.

I’ve long liked the saying: Don’t despair, one thief was saved; don’t presume, one thief was condemned.

The essence of mortal, i.e., deadly, sin is the complete rejection of God and loss of “sanctifying grace.” That is, the loss of Christ’s life in us. Only God knows if that’s happened. You may well not - either way.
Hence - Hope.

The requirements for a mortal sin are: (1) an objectively grave matter (2) knowing it’s a grave matter and (3) willingly doing it… The Church, wisely, focuses on the grave matter part…because that’s the part that’s easiest to know. If you are involved in a grave matter, you might meet the other 2 requirements - and then you are in a world of trouble. You might not, too, but don’t take chances…

So, could all sorts of individual acts (or omissions), actually be a mortal sin…sure. But maybe not. Have Hope. Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself - and walk humbly before your God.

The theology is interesting and satisfies all sorts of human needs. Hope, like Faith and Charity, is a gift from God.

 

[CRM_Brother]

I do not think that the general concept of virtue ethics has been condemned, but rather that the condemnation falls on the ‘either/or’ mentality: choosing one over the other. St. Bernard of Clairvaux said that justice and mercy are Christ’s two feet with which we walk our spiritual journey. To deny one one of the ethics systems, either virtue ethics or ethics if law (attention to sin in its various forms of gravity) is to cut off one of these feet and the person falls into error.

As Christian’s, our ultimate goal is to conform us to Christ: to live a virtuous life. It is not good enough to simply live our lives in avoidance of sin. This would be pitfall of the pharisees. In paying attention to our sins, we can find the areas in which our virtue is weak. We amend the action bit we must also amend the understanding and the habit which urged us to commit that action.

Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith stated wrote an article stating that the bar for mortal sin and ultimate condemnation is set exceedingly high for the final judgement. One of the three criteria is full knowledge. He said that it was not enough for someone to tell you that something was wrong. Instead, then Joseph Ratzinger explains, full knowledge includes understanding the full revelation of the spiritual and metaphysical reality of the sin. Pope Benedict, with this high bar for mortal sin, stated that he personally believed that there were very few, if any, people in hell.

Thus, we must also look the our overarching virtuous life. If the sin does not conform with other virtues practiced in the life of the sinner, then that sinner most likely has an imperfect knowledge of their act and would most likely not have committed it, had he or she had perfect knowledge of it. Pope Benedict said that true mortal sin is most likely reserved for people who identify God with full knowledge of who He is and commits the act out of hate for Him.

This is not to say that any sin which is truly non-mortal does not need to be confessed. The Catechism also speaks of ‘grave’ sins, that is, sins with grave matter, regardless of the fulfillment of the other two requirements of mortal sins.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Pope Benedict XVI, while he was still the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith stated wrote an article stating that the bar for mortal sin and ultimate condemnation is set exceedingly high for the final judgement. One of the three criteria is full knowledge. He said that it was not enough for someone to tell you that something was wrong. Instead, then Joseph Ratzinger explains, full knowledge includes understanding the full revelation of the spiritual and metaphysical reality of the sin. Pope Benedict, with this high bar for mortal sin, stated that he personally believed that there were very few, if any, people in hell.

Thus, we must also look the our overarching virtuous life. If the sin does not conform with other virtues practiced in the life of the sinner, then that sinner most likely has an imperfect knowledge of their act and would most likely not have committed it, had he or she had perfect knowledge of it. Pope Benedict said that true mortal sin is most likely reserved for people who identify God with full knowledge of who He is and commits the act out of hate for Him.

I hope he’s right.

But that would come as news to the Fatima children. That would come as news to St John Bosco. That would come as news to anyone who has ever speculated on the fewness of the saved.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Many scholars view the scarcity of those in heaven, as seen in the mystics, as simply those who went directly to heaven. The vast majority of souls first enter purgatory and eventually are allowed to enter into the heavenly wedding feast. Pope Benedict mentioned this point in his article

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Many scholars view the scarcity of those in heaven, as seen in the mystics as simply those who went directly to heaven. The vast majority of souls first enter purgatory and eventually are allowed to enter into the heavenly wedding feast. Pope Benedict mentioned this point in his article

Again, I hope he’s right.

Assuming I don’t have a mortal sin on my soul that I don’t know about — and I make an Act of Perfect Contrition daily — I can’t possibly see how I can avoid a long stay in purgatory. Obtaining a plenary indulgence every day of the world can’t erase the fact that I’m just not ready yet. Too many sinful inclinations. Too many imperfections.

 

[fhansen]

I think another point to make can serve to describe these distinctions in a different way. The Church teaches that mortal sin opposes/destroys love in us. It’s a turning away from God; it kills our own spirits/souls. The Church also teaches, simply, that we’ll be judged on our love at the end of our lives. So while this concept may seem subjective, it still perhaps gives us a clearer or fuller criteria by which to assess our state of being. And it’s not subjective to God; He knows the state of our hearts-and He judges by them, according to Scripture.

Teachings on sin, with the division between venial and mortal, give us some guidelines which can help us make an assessment, but we should not become embroiled in a sort of mechanical view of sin, where reconciliation/confession also become a sort of mechanical antidote for it. God’s all about our interior condition, while we must do the best we can to understand and conform to His ways.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Teachings on sin, with the division between venial and mortal, give us some guidelines which can help us make an assessment, but we should not become embroiled in a sort of mechanical view of sin, where reconciliation/confession also become a sort of mechanical antidote for it. God’s all about our interior condition, while we must do the best we can to understand and conform to His ways.

Well, perhaps. But I just wouldn’t want anyone to say “yes, I know X is a mortal sin, but to have to live without X, that would make life pretty difficult, I mean, I love God and all that, but I guess I just don’t trust Him enough to suffer what I would have to suffer, if I refrained from doing X. Besides, everyone else does X, the priest doesn’t even bring up X from the pulpit or in confession, and nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with X anymore — hey, we live in modern times, you know”.

 

[CRM_Brother]

It is interesting that you would say that. Sainthood (being in heaven) has nothing to do with the lack of imperfections. God loves us, imperfections and all. The Chirch tells us that the first step of identifying if someone is in heaven is the perfection of virtue, not act. ‘Venerable’ is only attained after a declaration of heroic virtue. Purgatory is not a purification of each individual earthly sin but rather a purification of the person’s virtue. The damage of our souls as a result to sin is a sign of that imperfect virtue. Indulgences wipe away the damage done by sin but does not immediately affect our virtue. Instead, it gives us a starting point by which we can work to perfect our virtue. This is why we can do indulgences every day of our life and still fall back to our old ways. If we do not work on virtue, on our positive conformity to Christ, our acts will not follow and we will again fall into sin.

 

[fhansen]

We show our love by our actions. If we do X, then we probably don’t really love as we should, let alone trust. It’s all a process, getting to this point. The perfect human would love God with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and their neighbor as themselves. A much taller order than appears at first glance, and a patient work of God’s, with our cooperation.

 

[Genesis315]

Eastern Christians do not necessarily make this dichotomy

Some may not now, but they used to, going back as far as the West did, as I understand. The more fuzzy approach seems to be the newer one after the initial development in the East and West. For example, in St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Exomologetarion (one of the most important Eastern Orthodox books on confession), he explains the importance of this distinction (and even makes a bunch more finer distinctions and levels of gravity) and cites a 6th century Eastern Saint as an example. Venial are sometimes called pardonable.

St. Anastasios of Antioch:

“If we fall into some small, pardonable sins on account of our being human, either with our tongue, our ears, our eyes, and we fall as victims of deceit into vainglory, or sorrow, or anger, or some other like sin, let us condemn ourselves and confess to God. Thus let us partake of the Holy Mysteries, believing that the reception of the divine Mysteries is unto the purification of these small sins (though not the grave and evil and impure sins which we may have committed, regarding which we should seek the Mystery of Confession).”

Their later synods speak of mortal sins often as making one liable to damnation. This was never a point of division at any reunion councils or unia. One EO person told me that the distinction is still made in Slavic countries and on Mt. Athos.

You can see the development progress in the excerpts from the Fathers here:

What the Early Church Believed: Mortal Sin | Catholic Answers Tract

Scripture is clear that certain sins exclude from the kingdom–precisely defining what makes a sin exclude from Heaven while another doesn’t was something the Church began to accomplish early on.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Exomologetarion

Now that is a mouthful!

HomeschoolDad:

Eastern Christians do not necessarily make this dichotomy

Some may not now, but they used to, going back as far as the West did, as I understand. The more fuzzy approach seems to be the newer one after the initial development in the East and West. For example, in St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Exomologetarion (one of the most important Eastern Orthodox books on confession), he explains the importance of this distinction (and even makes a bunch more finer distinctions and levels of gravity) and cites a 6th century Eastern Saint as an example. Venial are sometimes called pardonable.

In all seriousness, I am glad to see this distinction. To have in one’s mind “there is so much ‘grave matter’ in the world, that it’s no use, Catholicism just asks too much, I can’t do it, I’m going to hell” could easily lead either to despair or to scrupulosity. It seems like people nowadays, with the massive failure of catechetics, either think that everything is a sin, or that nothing is a sin. Veritas in medio stat!

 

[joecaro]

Excellent observations! The answer however, is not as complex as you might imagine. When God relayed the 10 Commandments to Moses He gave us all the blueprint of what not to EVER do if we were to gain heaven. Since Vatican II however, we have been lead (falsely) to consider the ‘motivations’ behind any/all of our transgressions, blending an exaggerated sense of understanding and forgiveness (based on psychological theory) to sin itself. Within our present day society, we are all guiltless because, it is claimed, it really wasn’t our direct fault and that other ’ elements’ were responsible for our actions or inaction’s.
The truth stands the test of time - if you commit a MORTAL SIN by breaking any of the 10 Commandments - to Hell you go . . .PERIOD. Mortal sins cannot be expunged from our soul, except by a Priest of the church. Like the O.J. murder case, you can’t get your case dismissed on a technicality. Many people confuse the laws of man (society) with the Laws of God.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The truth stands the test of time - if you commit a MORTAL SIN by breaking any of the 10 Commandments - to Hell you go . . .PERIOD.

Please provide support from any authorized catechism of the Catholic Church, or from any magisterial teaching document of the Church, that says any sin against any one of the Ten Commandments is always a mortal sin.

The added conditions of sufficient reflection and full consent of the will far predate Vatican II.

 

[Vico]

… How did this distinction come about? …

Catholic Encyclopedia

Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Reply to Faustus XXII.27) as “Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam”, i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words “dictum vel factum vel concupitum” denote the material element of sin, a human act: “contra legem æternam”, the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the Divine law.

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

 

[yankeesouth]

The truth stands the test of time - if you commit a MORTAL SIN by breaking any of the 10 Commandments - to Hell you go . . .PERIOD. Mortal sins cannot be expunged from our soul, except by a Priest of the church.

Please provide support from any authorized catechism of the Catholic Church, or from any magisterial teaching document of the Church, that says any sin against any one of the Ten Commandments is always a mortal sin.

Well we do have Jesus, when asked how to gain eternal life, saying obey the commandments.

I don’t know but Jesus warned a lot against sin and, of course, tells us to sin no more. And by giving us the Spiritual Works of Mercy expects us to warn against sin.

I do think there is a tendency in the modern Church to promote ourselves from tax collectors to accountants, figuring out ways to say sin is not a sin. Loophole Catholics.

 

[joecaro]

I earlier gave you the short list of Mortal Sins against God. The following list, you will find, contain Grave Sins that are also considered Mortal Sins. You will of course, find the 10 Commandments among them:

• Involvement in cult practices like masonry, Wicca, wizardry
• Leaving the Catholic faith for another religion or practice
• Receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin without confession
• Receiving confirmation or marriage in a state of mortal sin
• Firm hatred of God and his teaching
• Buying or selling of blessed or consecrated objects
• Using God’s name as a purposeful curse
• Seriously wishing death or harm upon another person
• Serious slander about another person
• Swearing false oaths
• Perjury or lying under oath
• Willful failure to fast and abstain on Ash Wednesday/Good Friday
• Missing mass intentionally on Sunday or Holy Days
• Willfully working at a task for more than a few hours on Sunday regularly
• Serious failure to care for your aging parents
• Wishing evil or death upon your parents or grandparents
• Failure to baptize your children and raise them in the faith
• Murder, manslaughter, or homicide
• Having an abortion
• Using artificial birth control which causes spontaneous abortion
• Endangering another while driving drunk
• Abusing and selling illegal drugs
• Having oneself sterilized
• Adultery
• [Fornication
• Self-abuse
• Prostituting one’s body for money
• In-vitro fertilization
• Human cloning
• Co-habitation before marriage
• Stealing a large amount of money
• Detraction or serious gossip
• [Internet pornography
• Willfully lusting after another person