Is it a mortal sin

[Spock]

…to fail to attend the mass? I heard it is, at least on certain days. The question is: “is it a mortal sin for Catholics only?”. Or is it a mortal sin for non-Catholocs as well? Is it only a venial sin for non-Catholics? Or maybe it is not a sin at all? Is it a mortal sin not to be Catholic? These are serious questions.

If it is mandatory only for Catholics to attend mass, (but not for others) then there are actions which are sinful for some people, or for some Christians, but not sinful for others. If that is the case, where do we find a definitive list broken down by religious affiliation (or lack of it) where we can can learn what actions constitute a “mortal” sin for us? Is the list for Catholics different from the list for Protestants? Or for Muslims? Or for pagans? For atheists?

For example, is the first commandment (you must love God with all your heart… etc.) applicable to atheists, who do not believe that God exists, and as such they are unable to love God, or even feel any emotion toward God?

 

[chrsbrosky]

It is a mortal sin to miss mass through your own fault. For example, if you didn’t go because you decided to go play golf instead, then you committed a mortal sin.

Unless something comes up that makes it impossible for you to go to mass, like you don’t have a car or other means of transportation, then there is no need for confession.

Same goes for holy days of obligation as well.

God bless,
Alex

 

[smichhertz]

Hi Spock!

Your questions touch on one of my favorite subject areas to discuss with atheists. That is Divine and Human Law. Often times I find, that atheists see a lot of contradiction in religion, and the proper understanding of Divine Law usually answers a lot of those contradictions for them. One time, the Apologetics group I regularly attend did a series on Divine Law, and we had a few atheists show up for the whole thing!

Long story short, the answers to your questions can’t be given in a soundbyte. But I encourage you to read up on the following sources to get your feet wet:

newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm

cardozo.yu.edu/uploadedFiles/CJL/publications/1-Adapting%20Divine%20Law%20to%20Change.pdf

newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm

 

[JRKH]

…to fail to attend the mass? I heard it is, at least on certain days. The question is: “is it a mortal sin for Catholics only?”. Or is it a mortal sin for non-Catholocs as well? Is it only a venial sin for non-Catholics? Or maybe it is not a sin at all? Is it a mortal sin not to be Catholic? These are serious questions.

If it is mandatory only for Catholics to attend mass, (but not for others) then there are actions which are sinful for some people, or for some Christians, but not sinful for others. If that is the case, where do we find a definitive list broken down by religious affiliation (or lack of it) where we can can learn what actions constitute a “mortal” sin for us? Is the list for Catholics different from the list for Protestants? Or for Muslims? Or for pagans? For atheists?

For example, is the first commandment (you must love God with all your heart… etc.) applicable to atheists, who do not believe that God exists, and as such they are unable to love God, or even feel any emotion toward God?

Frankly Spock, I find the above to be rather terribly confused. I’m not even sure how many questions you are asking…

However…The gist of what and how you are asking seems to point to a false and backward way of looking at sin - and mortal sin in particular. Salvation or damnation is not about obedience or disobedience to a set of rules…It is about Love…

A Sin is Mortal because one rejects God and Since God is Love, the sinner reje
cts Love… The person who claims to be Catholic and to Love God above all else, but then “blows off” mass without sufficient cause, demonstrates that they do NOT Love God as they claim. It’s About Love…

As to others, non-catholic, or non-christian, or atheist - Much depends on the state of their ignorance in relation to God and to the Two great commandments of Love…

Peace
James

 

[Vincent1984]

The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, being of ecclesiastical law, is binding only on Catholics. (canon 11) It is a grave matter for Catholics to neglect this obligation.

The obligation to render worship to God (on which the above obligation rests) is of Divine origin, and is therefore binding on all people.

Be very careful in your use of “mortal sin”. Every time you used it in your original post, “grave sin” would be the correct term. Grave matter/grave sin refers to the objectively serious nature of the act. ‘Mortal’ requires both the grave matter, and culpability on the part of the individual. Because you are talking about the act not the internal circumstances and conscience of the individual, you cannot assume “mortal sin”

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Mortal sin- grave matter (doing bad stuff, serious infraction) and full consent of the will.

There are 38,000 denominations of Christianity. It follows from the law of non-contradiction that 37,999 are wrong. Most protestant denominations believe in “sola-scriptura” and the doctrine of “saved by faith alone”. You know how James Bond had a “license to kill”? Well “saved by faith alone” is kind of like a license to sin. I think many of them have something called a “sinners prayer” that takes the place of confession. They can do whatever they want and then just recite this prayer. Of course many of them have good intentions or are in good faith but don’t realize the contradictory nature of their beliefs and the nihilism that is protestantism. If John Calvin was right, that there are certain elect and salvation is predetermined, what’s the point of doing anything?

As a general rule, only Catholics can commit a mortal sin and everyone else is damned by default. The actions of people who are damned by default only serve to increase or decrease the degree of their torments in hell. Dante describes the “noble pagans” location in hell where you find people like Socrates as a sort of 5 star resort or country club. People who have not received a water baptism and are not united, mystically, to the church have a very low statistical chance of entering paradise. I say “low statistical chance” because the church doesn’t officially teach that anyone is in hell. The church does teach that if you die in a state of mortal sin then you go to hell. They just don’t like mentioning specific names of people.

As for atheists or someone who has been brainwashed into a wrong religion…
There is something called “vincible” and “invincible” ignorance which reduces culpability of moral infractions. You can look up these terms on wiki or new advent here:
newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

Basically an example of “vincible” ignorance would be an atheist on these forums who is not intellectually disabled and has fully access to the entirety of church teaching, the vatican website, and even has little “servants” like myself to try and explain all this stuff to you. My guess is that someone like this has increased culpability and could possibly commit mortal sin; if they are fully aware of how it is defined and do it anyway.

An example of “invincible” ignorance would be a child who was abandoned at birth, tossed into the woods, and raised by wolves. A feral child. Yes these exist and they usually end up intellectually disabled. Obviously decreased culpability here.

You can probably find a list of mortal sins on google. A good starting point is the ten commandments.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Human beings need to breathe air (oxygen, nitrogen etc.) in order to live.

If I were to state, “Human beings have an obligation to breathe air if they want to keep on living”, I don’t think that many people would castigate me by saying that human beings should WANT to breathe air and to make a written rule or ‘law’ is ‘forcing’ what should be freely chosen into an ‘obligation’. But this is a stiff necked society and an argumentative one at that, so I’m sure I’ll hear from the Hemlock Society supporters that I should ‘get my nose’ out of the business of the people who do not WANT to be ‘obligated’ to breathe, thank you very much.

Catholics are human beings (contrary to fringe opinions ) who have an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days if they want to keep on living spiritually (being in a state of grace) and not die spiritually (through grave sin by refusing to attend Mass). The need to be in a state of grace for spiritual health is just as vital as the need to breathe oxygen in a human for the Catholic.

Catholic means ‘universal’ and the whole idea of Catholic Christianity is to bring the message of the gospel (good news) to the entire world, who (we hope and pray) will embrace that message and choose to become Catholic (universal). . .thus even though the obligation rests only on baptised Catholics, the rationale behind is that this is intended to one day be met by the entire human race.

 

[Spock]

It is a mortal sin to miss mass through your own fault. For example, if you didn’t go because you decided to go play golf instead, then you committed a mortal sin.

Is this true for everyone? Or only for Catholics? That is the question.

 

[Vincent1984]

Is this true for everyone? Or only for Catholics? That is the question.

The specific obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days applies only to Catholics. The obligation on which it rests, the obligation to render worship to God, applies to all people, even those who do not know it.

The question of whether or not failure to keep this obligation is ‘mortal’ is much more dependant on the circumstances of the individual.

 

[Spock]

Salvation or damnation is not about obedience or disobedience to a set of rules…

Oh yes, it is. Allegedy you express your love by keeping those rules.

A Sin is Mortal because one rejects God and Since God is Love, the sinner rejects Love…

So, translate that into reality. As an atheist, I do not follow, nor reject God. I do not go to mass. Do I commit a mortal sin?

As to others, non-catholic, or non-christian, or atheist - Much depends on the state of their ignorance in relation to God and to the Two great commandments of Love…

I am only aware of what people say, and the mere word of those people is insufficient.

 

[tonyrey]

Frankly Spock, I find the above to be rather terribly confused. I’m not even sure how many questions you are asking…

However…The gist of what and how you are asking seems to point to a false and backward way of looking at sin - and mortal sin in particular. Salvation or damnation is not about obedience or disobedience to a set of rules…It is about Love…

A Sin is Mortal because one rejects God and Since God is Love, the sinner reje
cts Love… The person who claims to be Catholic and to Love God above all else, but then “blows off” mass without sufficient cause, demonstrates that they do NOT Love God as they claim. It’s About Love…

As to others, non-catholic, or non-christian, or atheist - Much depends on the state of their ignorance in relation to God and to the Two great commandments of Love…

Peace
James

An excellent answer, James!

 

[Spock]

The specific obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days applies only to Catholics.

Excellent. This is how I understand it. So there is a separate rule-set for Cathoilcs. Presumably, there is a different one for other Christians. Maybe a different one for adherents of other religions. And yet another one for unbelievers. Now, to my best knowledge, God never issued a separate rule-set for different kinds of people.

There is the ten commandments. But the very first one commands to love God. (A funny thing that God supposedly wished to be loved without coersion, and the first commandment is an order to love him… very strange.) Does it apply to not-Christians? Maybe to those who believe in a different god? But then there is a commandment not to worship “false gods”. Very confusing.

The obligation on which it rests, the obligation to render worship to God, applies to all people, even those who do not know it.

That makes no sense at all. The very first requirement to love or render worship to someone is an absolute proof that the being to be loved and worshipped actually exists. There is no proof that God exists. Atheists do not believe that God exists. How can atheists be expected to love and worship God, if they do not believe God’s existence? Are they “exempt” from the first commandment? Very confusing indeed.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
Salvation or damnation is not about obedience or disobedience to a set of rules…

Oh no its’ not…As you say quite correctly yourself, “you express your love by keeping those rules”, so it is not the rules (kept or not) but the Love that is the determining factor. How one acts (expresses their faith) is an indicator of the health of said faith and the Love they profess to have.
If a man professes to “love his wife” but then ignores and abuses her, can he be said to truly love her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
A Sin is Mortal because one rejects God and Since God is Love, the sinner rejects Love…

So, translate that into reality. As an atheist, I do not follow, nor reject God. I do not go to mass. Do I commit a mortal sin?

Naturally I do not have sufficient understanding of you personally so I can only respond to the specific question and in a more general sense.
The “mortal sin” in this case is not about attending mass but rather in accepting and following God (Who is Love).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
As to others, non-catholic, or non-christian, or atheist - Much depends on the state of their ignorance in relation to God and to the Two great commandments of Love…

I am only aware of what people say, and the mere word of those people is insufficient.

As you wish.

Peace
James

 

[Vincent1984]

So there is a separate rule-set for Cathoilcs. Presumably, there is a different one for other Christians. Maybe a different one for adherents of other religions. And yet another one for unbelievers.

Yes, these lists are kept in a secret Vatican vault. Along with all the Nazi gold, proof that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children, and the remote control device for Colonel Gaddafi.

Now, to my best knowledge, God never issued a separate rule-set for different kinds of people.

Half of the Old Testament is the instructions God gave to the Israelites alone.

Canon law (which is the legal basis for the obligation to attend Mass, your original query) defines itself as applicable to Catholics. For other obligations, based on objective morality not positive ecclesiastical law, we are all the same.

There is the ten commandments. But the very first one commands to love God. (A funny thing that God supposedly wished to be loved without coersion, and the first commandment is an order to love him… very strange.) Does it apply to not-Christians? Maybe to those who believe in a different god? But then there is a commandment not to worship “false gods”. Very confusing.

That makes no sense at all. The very first requirement to love or render worship to someone is an absolute proof that the being to be loved and worshipped actually exists. There is no proof that God exists. Atheists do not believe that God exists. How can atheists be expected to love and worship God, if they do not believe God’s existence? Are they “exempt” from the first commandment? Very confusing indeed.

I have no absolute proof that you exist. For all I know, you could be a sophisticated bot created to troll messageboards. That doesn’t stop you from giving me instructions, or even (should you so wish) holding me responsible for failing to keep your instructions. Whether I heed your instructions or not, I couldn’t fairly describe them as ‘coercion’.

 

[Spock]

If a man professes to “love his wife” but then ignores and abuses her, can he be said to truly love her?

Of course not. Now replace the “man” with God, and the “wife” with humans, and think about what you just said here. Your proposition mirrors mine, with extreme precision.

Naturally I do not have sufficient understanding of you personally so I can only respond to the specific question and in a more general sense.
The “mortal sin” in this case is not about attending mass but rather in accepting and following God (Who is Love).

I gave you all the pertinent information. I am an atheist, who does not believe in God’s existence. As such I am unable to either follow God, or reject God. Let’s make it clear: “I do reject what people say about God, but I do not reject God”. This is a very important difference. Is my inability to “follow God”, the impossibility of doing what the first commandment demands - a mortal sin?

As you wish.

It is not really my “wish”. The point is that the ten commandments along with all the texts are not God’s words - in any shape or form I can recognize. I am aware what believers say, but that is insufficient.

 

[Spock]

Yes, these lists are kept in a secret Vatican vault. Along with all the Nazi gold, proof that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children, and the remote control device for Colonel Gaddafi.

I think it is time to reveal them.

Half of the Old Testament is the instructions God gave to the Israelites alone.

Which half? (This reminds me of an old story: “On the first day at medical school the professor says: ‘Half of what you will learn during your studies is sheer guesswork’. Unfortunately we do not know which half!”.)

Canon law (which is the legal basis for the obligation to attend Mass, your original query) defines itself as applicable to Catholics. For other obligations, based on objective morality not positive ecclesiastical law, we are all the same.

If there are exceptions, if there are activities that pertain only to a subset of people, then the whole house of cards crumbles. The concept of “mortal sin” becomes relative instead of “absolute”. If there is one exception, then there can be more. I know you say that there are no other exceptions. But your word is not sufficient.

I have no absolute proof that you exist. For all I know, you could be a sophisticated bot created to troll messageboards.

Of course you do. You have absolute proof that there is someone or something at the other end of this conversation, who is distinct from you. Who, or what I am - specifically - you cannot know. But you cannot doubt that there is someone “over here”.

That doesn’t stop you from giving me instructions, or even (should you so wish) holding me responsible for failing to keep your instructions. Whether I heed your instructions or not, I couldn’t fairly describe them as ‘coercion’.

You did not seem to understand what I said:

Allegedly God wishes us to love him freely. God does not want to force us to love him. Yet, the first commandment demands or commands us to love him, and later in the Bible we can read about the fate of those who disobey God’s commands, and it is pretty unpalatable. How can one reconcile our “freedom” to choose with the threat of eternal punishment if we don’t? It is precisely what a mafioso does when he puts a gun to your head (or to your child’s head) and tells you: “do what I command, or else!”. Where is the “freedom” in this scenario?

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
If a man professes to “love his wife” but then ignores and abuses her, can he be said to truly love her?

Or we could leave “man” and just change “wife” to God and see what that produces.
St John tells us that God is Love. As such all that he does stems from Love. In such a view, it is not God who ignores and abuses man but man who ignores and abuses God.

I understand what you are saying above, and it is a very common viewpoint - really it is quite a selfish one and pervades, not just the atheistic community but much of the theistic community as well. Why did/does God do such and such? How can God be loving if blah blah blah…
What it all really boils down to is that because we either can’t or won’t Love God as He deserves for all that He has given and all that He is, we look for ways to prove that God doesn’t Love us - thereby justifying our lack of Love for him.

I gave you all the pertinent information. I am an atheist, who does not believe in God’s existence. As such I am unable to either follow God, or reject God. Let’s make it clear: “I do reject what people say about God, but I do not reject God”. This is a very important difference. Is my inability to “follow God”, the impossibility of doing what the first commandment demands - a mortal sin?

From the Catechism:
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Of course you “know of” the Gospel and of the Church, but then again do you KNOW these things truly and accurately…
These things get into what is termed “vincible” and “invincible” ignorance…
Above you use terms like, “…my inability to follow God…”, and “impossibility of doing what the first commandment demands…” The question becomes are these true and actual blocks that cannot be overcome (invincible) or might your continued study and presence here, along with prayer and the Action of God’s Holy Spirit, eventually overcome these barriers and thus allow you to truly know and come to God.
So once again I must decline to say whether you would be condemned,
At present you say that you do not reject God but you reject what people say about God…Sounds like you are leaving the door - if not open, at least unlocked - but you will not accept what others tell you and are basically demanding that God reveal himself to you personally…This will require that you spend a lot of time in quiet, humility, prayerful reading and contemplation. It will not likely happen through the “rational” approach.

It is not really my “wish”. The point is that the ten commandments along with all the texts are not God’s words - in any shape or form I can recognize. I am aware what believers say, but that is insufficient.

What is you wish?

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

Or we could leave “man” and just change “wife” to God and see what that produces.

Certainly. But I would like to analyze what I posited. Would you be amenable?

St John tells us that God is Love. As such all that he does stems from Love.

With all due respect, words are cheap. John can tell what he wants, but if his words are not borne out by evidence, then the words alone do not carry any weight. That is why I would like to analyze the scenario I posited.

I understand what you are saying above, and it is a very common viewpoint - really it is quite a selfish one and pervades, not just the atheistic community but much of the theistic community as well. Why did/does God do such and such? How can God be loving if blah blah blah…
What it all really boils down to is that because we either can’t or won’t Love God as He deserves for all that He has given and all that He is, we look for ways to prove that God doesn’t Love us - thereby justifying our lack of Love for him.

Why is it seflish? People are not looking for “excuses” for not loving God, they genuinely do not see the sign of God’s love for them. I am one of these people. Here is a short analysis:

The word “agape” means to act on behalf of someone else, to act in the best interest of the loved one. I hope we can agree on this. Now God creates some people of whom he knows that they will not “make the grade”, and thus they will be tortured forever in hell. God knows this even before he creates these people. God is also sovereign, God is under no obligation to create anyone. God could choose to create or not create these people. Is it in the best interest of these people (who will end up in hell) to have them created? No one of sound mind can argue that it is in the best interest of someone to get created when at the end he will be tortured forever. So either there are no people who will end up in hell, or there are some, but in the letter case God is not benevolent. You choose which one to believe.

So once again I must decline to say whether you would be condemned,

That is quite all right. You do give me reasons and I respect them.

At present you say that you do not reject God but you reject what people say about God…Sounds like you are leaving the door - if not open, at least unlocked - but you will not accept what others tell you and are basically demanding that God reveal himself to you personally…This will require that you spend a lot of time in quiet, humility, prayerful reading and contemplation. It will not likely happen through the “rational” approach.

The word “demand” is a bit strong. However, if one takes the Bible seriously, there is nothing wrong with asking (not demanding) for personal evidence. (“Whatever you ask in my name…” said Jesus).

Again, according to your beliefs, it was God, who imbued me with my rational and skeptical mind. I do not believe that God would give me reasoning powers and then demand that I will abandon them in favor of some faith.

What is you wish?

That question is too open-ended. I am sure you would not wish to read pages and pages of things that I would like to know or acquire. If you could narrow it down a bit, please.

 

[JRKH]

Certainly. But I would like to analyze what I posited. Would you be amenable?

With all due respect, words are cheap. John can tell what he wants, but if his words are not borne out by evidence, then the words alone do not carry any weight. That is why I would like to analyze the scenario I posited.

The problem with trying to analyze the posit is that you already have your mind made up on it. This is evidenced by what you write below. So I don’t see a lot of point in delving into something this specific.

Why is it selfish? People are not looking for “excuses” for not loving God, they genuinely do not see the sign of God’s love for them. I am one of these people.

First of all, not everyone is “looking for excuses” but I can tell you that a good many are. There are many people who are so use to the “everyday” and common blessings and signs of God’s Love that they overlook them completely - in much the same way that children overlook all that a parent does for them out of love (including punishment).

Here is a short analysis:

The word “agape” means to act on behalf of someone else, to act in the best interest of the loved one. I hope we can agree on this.

Well Agape, according To Strong’s Greek Lexicon, means: love, i.e. affection or benevolence, Charity. It does not speak of any Action - best interest or otherwise.

Now God creates some people of whom he knows that they will not “make the grade”, and thus they will be tortured forever in hell. God knows this even before he creates these people. God is also sovereign, God is under no obligation to create anyone. God could choose to create or not create these people. Is it in the best interest of these people (who will end up in hell) to have them created? No one of sound mind can argue that it is in the best interest of someone to get created when at the end he will be tortured forever. So either there are no people who will end up in hell, or there are some, but in the letter case God is not benevolent. You choose which one to believe.

You raise a complicated issue here and one that many struggle with. The problem is that it really misses the point altogether in so far as what you are struggling with (whether God exists).
If God exists, and if he exists in the form recorded in the bible and taught by the Catholic Church, then our discussing the validity or the justice of scenario above will change nothing.
If God exists, then the denial of Him by one such as yourself, will not make Him non-existent, or hell any less real or painful…

If God doesn’t exist, then nothing we say here will change that either…

This is why I am encouraging you to seek another path of exploration. The one of quiet contemplative meditative prayer and discernment.
Peel back the layers and layers of human “dressing” to find the purity of God. The foundational conditions of “Love” and lack of Love.
Which builds up and which tears down. Decide which is the truer course to follow - (hopefully the course of Love) and then Live it out. All else will fall into place.

The word “demand” is a bit strong. However, if one takes the Bible seriously, there is nothing wrong with asking (not demanding) for personal evidence. (“Whatever you ask in my name…” said Jesus).

Again, according to your beliefs, it was God, who imbued me with my rational and skeptical mind. I do not believe that God would give me reasoning powers and then demand that I will abandon them in favor of some faith.

Faith does not require abandonment of reason. Perhaps this is one of the roadblocks to your coming to faith. You see the two things in opposition.
Yes God imbued you with gifts. How you use them is part of another God given gift…Free Will.

That question is too open-ended. I am sure you would not wish to read pages and pages of things that I would like to know or acquire. If you could narrow it down a bit, please.

RE: the “What is your wish question”, it really isn’t that broad. If you go back through the postings you will see the following exchange:
Spock: “I am only aware of what people say (relating to God), and the mere word of those people is insufficient”.
JRKH: “As you wish”
Spock: “It is not really my ‘wish’. The point is that the Ten Commandments along with all the texts are not God’s words - in any shape or form I can recognize. I am aware what believers say, but that is insufficient”.
JRKH: “What is your wish?"

So – the “what is your wish" question is not an open ended question at all, but is based on your saying that it is “not really (your) wish” that the “mere word of others is insufficient”…in matters relating to God.
So if mere words being insufficient, is not really your wish, then what IS your wish….What WOULD be sufficient to bring you to belief.

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

…to fail to attend the mass? I heard it is, at least on certain days. The question is: “is it a mortal sin for Catholics only?”. Or is it a mortal sin for non-Catholocs as well? Is it only a venial sin for non-Catholics? Or maybe it is not a sin at all? Is it a mortal sin not to be Catholic? These are serious questions.

If it is mandatory only for Catholics to attend mass, (but not for others) then there are actions which are sinful for some people, or for some Christians, but not sinful for others. If that is the case, where do we find a definitive list broken down by religious affiliation (or lack of it) where we can can learn what actions constitute a “mortal” sin for us? Is the list for Catholics different from the list for Protestants? Or for Muslims? Or for pagans? For atheists?

For example, is the first commandment (you must love God with all your heart… etc.) applicable to atheists, who do not believe that God exists, and as such they are unable to love God, or even feel any emotion toward God?

Luke 12:48:
From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Regardless of where we start out or where we are now, God is incontrovertibly fair. And the more we know of Him, the more culpable we would be for not aligning our wills with His. As for the first commandments, this is simply what makes a person whole and just-and is ultimately, incidentally, the source of human happiness as well.