S
Syele
Guest
This is what I was trying to say, but you said it way better.
- Status
F
Flopfoot
Guest
There’s a difference between believing that the Church teaches something is wrong (green bananas example) - or in other words, believing that something is wrong - and something just seeming wrong to you that you aren’t sure is wrong but feels wrong.
It is not necessarily a sin to do something that ‘seems’ wrong to you.
On the one hand, when something seems wrong, it might be your conscience letting you know it is wrong. Because, after all, we do have natural moral law and so on - for example, even a child, who has never heard about God or morality or anything, can figure out that suicide is wrong, simply from what he feels inside him, what is written in his instincts and on his heart by God. And a well formed conscience is likely to be right most of the time. However, it is possible for our consciences to be not as well formed as we thought, and/or for us not to be able to understand what they are saying.
So when we feel that something is wrong, and it is not because it actually is wrong and that our well formed conscience just thought he would let us know that, then what is the other explanation?
It is the work of the devil.
Scrupulosity seems to be one of his favorite tools for wreaking evil and misery in the world. By making us think things are wrong when they are not, he makes us feel more sad and guilty than we need to be; he makes us feel like everything is a sin and that it is impossible to be a good person; this can even cause us to despair (to lose hope); and restricts our lives.
The most dangerous thing about this tool is that it can ‘work’ even on people who refuse to be tempted by evil - when he first starts making the suggestions on them, they think it is their conscience and they are just doing good by following it. Once he has sucked all the joy and freedom out of their lives and made good seem such a terrible thing to have to follow, then he can more easily break them with temptations later.
But how can we counter scrupulosity? We can’t simply ignore all the feelings of right and wrong we get because then we end up ignoring our conscience along with the devil. We need to form our consciences better, and to pray that God will help us to tell right from wrong, to tell true right from scrupulosity.
But more than this, we need to know what is actually right and wrong as best we can so that we are less dependant on feelings and more dependant on what we know. Singinbeauty, your first step in this would be to join the Catholic Church, which teaches the truth on all matters of faith and morals. (Look for a local RCIA class). For Catholics, you then need to use resources such as the CCC, this site, trusted priests and advisors, etc. and pray that you will understand as best you can and that your advisers won’t accidentally tell you anything wrong. In a way, these things are forming your conscience too. As life goes on you will come to know right from wrong better and better, and then the scrupulosity tactic won’t work on you any more.
It is not necessarily a sin to do something that ‘seems’ wrong to you.
On the one hand, when something seems wrong, it might be your conscience letting you know it is wrong. Because, after all, we do have natural moral law and so on - for example, even a child, who has never heard about God or morality or anything, can figure out that suicide is wrong, simply from what he feels inside him, what is written in his instincts and on his heart by God. And a well formed conscience is likely to be right most of the time. However, it is possible for our consciences to be not as well formed as we thought, and/or for us not to be able to understand what they are saying.
So when we feel that something is wrong, and it is not because it actually is wrong and that our well formed conscience just thought he would let us know that, then what is the other explanation?
It is the work of the devil.
Scrupulosity seems to be one of his favorite tools for wreaking evil and misery in the world. By making us think things are wrong when they are not, he makes us feel more sad and guilty than we need to be; he makes us feel like everything is a sin and that it is impossible to be a good person; this can even cause us to despair (to lose hope); and restricts our lives.
The most dangerous thing about this tool is that it can ‘work’ even on people who refuse to be tempted by evil - when he first starts making the suggestions on them, they think it is their conscience and they are just doing good by following it. Once he has sucked all the joy and freedom out of their lives and made good seem such a terrible thing to have to follow, then he can more easily break them with temptations later.
But how can we counter scrupulosity? We can’t simply ignore all the feelings of right and wrong we get because then we end up ignoring our conscience along with the devil. We need to form our consciences better, and to pray that God will help us to tell right from wrong, to tell true right from scrupulosity.
But more than this, we need to know what is actually right and wrong as best we can so that we are less dependant on feelings and more dependant on what we know. Singinbeauty, your first step in this would be to join the Catholic Church, which teaches the truth on all matters of faith and morals. (Look for a local RCIA class). For Catholics, you then need to use resources such as the CCC, this site, trusted priests and advisors, etc. and pray that you will understand as best you can and that your advisers won’t accidentally tell you anything wrong. In a way, these things are forming your conscience too. As life goes on you will come to know right from wrong better and better, and then the scrupulosity tactic won’t work on you any more.
B
baltobetsy
Guest
We have two issues in play here.
The first is the difference between “grave matter” and “mortal sin.” Or “objective wrong” and “sin.” Every single human act is either objectively wrong or not.
What makes it a sin or not is the combination of our understanding (full knowledge) and our consent. This is the second issue, primacy of conscience.
A person can do an action that is objectively wrong without committing sin if he is unaware that it is wrong or doing it without full consent (being forced, being asleep or partially so, doing it out of fear, etc.).
Conversely, a person can commit a sin by doing an action that is not objectively wrong if he truly believes it to be sinful. (The green bananas thing.)
Here’s an example I have used to explain this. Imagine you wish to hurt someone. You are under the impression that his left shoulder is injured and very tender, so you come up behind him and give him a “friendly” slap on the shoulder, expecting him to recoil in pain. In fact, his right shoulder is the injured one, and you have caused him no pain at all. Have you not by your intention sinned against him?
Singinbeauty thought her father would object to her going through the things in the piano bench, but she did it anyway. The fact that he did not mind does not mitigate the fact that she did what she thought would offend him. Wouldn’t he be hurt if she explained to him that she went through the things thinking he would mind?
Here’s the flip side of the same two examples: Your friend has an injured left shoulder, but you are unaware of it. You give him a friendly slap and he recoils in pain. You are aghast and surprised at having hurt him. Your friend is sore but not offended. This corresponds to doing the objective evil that a person is unaware of.
If Singinbeauty had sincerely believed that her father wanted her to see the things in the piano bench and found out later that he did not, she would not be to blame for doing it. Whether she should have known is not at issue. For the sake of the example, we’ll say she sincerely believed it to be OK.
We often have questions here about confessing things done in the past that a person has only recently discovered are wrong. Without full knowledge, they are not sins. The next time the person does the same thing with full consent, however, it will be sinful because the necessary knowledge is now present.
And the flip side…you do something you sincerely believe to be gravely wrong and later find out that it’s not. You’re not off the hook - you were willing to commit a mortal sin and did the action you believed to be sinful. It needs to be confessed.
Wow - that was a really LONG way of saying I agree with Singinbeauty!
Betsy
P.S. For those who tend toward scrupulosity, forget everything in this post and obey your confessor!!
The first is the difference between “grave matter” and “mortal sin.” Or “objective wrong” and “sin.” Every single human act is either objectively wrong or not.
What makes it a sin or not is the combination of our understanding (full knowledge) and our consent. This is the second issue, primacy of conscience.
A person can do an action that is objectively wrong without committing sin if he is unaware that it is wrong or doing it without full consent (being forced, being asleep or partially so, doing it out of fear, etc.).
Conversely, a person can commit a sin by doing an action that is not objectively wrong if he truly believes it to be sinful. (The green bananas thing.)
Here’s an example I have used to explain this. Imagine you wish to hurt someone. You are under the impression that his left shoulder is injured and very tender, so you come up behind him and give him a “friendly” slap on the shoulder, expecting him to recoil in pain. In fact, his right shoulder is the injured one, and you have caused him no pain at all. Have you not by your intention sinned against him?
Singinbeauty thought her father would object to her going through the things in the piano bench, but she did it anyway. The fact that he did not mind does not mitigate the fact that she did what she thought would offend him. Wouldn’t he be hurt if she explained to him that she went through the things thinking he would mind?
Here’s the flip side of the same two examples: Your friend has an injured left shoulder, but you are unaware of it. You give him a friendly slap and he recoils in pain. You are aghast and surprised at having hurt him. Your friend is sore but not offended. This corresponds to doing the objective evil that a person is unaware of.
If Singinbeauty had sincerely believed that her father wanted her to see the things in the piano bench and found out later that he did not, she would not be to blame for doing it. Whether she should have known is not at issue. For the sake of the example, we’ll say she sincerely believed it to be OK.
We often have questions here about confessing things done in the past that a person has only recently discovered are wrong. Without full knowledge, they are not sins. The next time the person does the same thing with full consent, however, it will be sinful because the necessary knowledge is now present.
And the flip side…you do something you sincerely believe to be gravely wrong and later find out that it’s not. You’re not off the hook - you were willing to commit a mortal sin and did the action you believed to be sinful. It needs to be confessed.
Wow - that was a really LONG way of saying I agree with Singinbeauty!
Betsy
P.S. For those who tend toward scrupulosity, forget everything in this post and obey your confessor!!
- Status