Is running a red light grave sin?

[PietroPaolo]

I didn’t say shooting one was. Just like shooting a coyote isn’t. But if I set a trap for the coyote and then realease him I’m violating the law. I can kill him on my property but I can’t humanely trap out of season regardless of how destructive he is. I know that the rock throwing is stupid, but my neighbor had to pay a $500 fine when his 8 yr old daughter broke the wing of a bird from throwing a rock at it. It wasn’t a seagull, they don’t live here. It was a cardinal. This is getting way off topic here. No one can ever convince me that she committed mortal sin by running a light. Sorry, I guess my conscience is malformed.

Would you think it was a mortal sin if, by running the light, she had caused an accident and killed a newborn riding home from the hospital?

 

[7armyrugrats]

Would you think it was a mortal sin if, by running the light, she had caused an accident and killed a newborn riding home from the hospital?

To be honest, I have seen hundreds of accidents over the years as I am sure we all have. Not once did I stop and think, “That man (or woman or kid) committed a mortal sin by failing to yield/running the light/speeding…” even in a fatal accident. I always saw it as AN ACCIDENT. A very sad, horrendous and tragic accident. Not an intended event, but an accident. So I guess I don’t.

If it were a high speed police chase than I could see it being a sin, but the OP was on her way to Mass not escaping a bank robbery. Like I said, I’m a lost soul apparently because I just don’t see this going anywhere. I’m not able to see your point and you can’t see mine.

 

[EasterJoy]

To be honest, I have seen hundreds of accidents over the years as I am sure we all have. Not once did I stop and think, “That man (or woman or kid) committed a mortal sin by failing to yield/running the light/speeding…” even in a fatal accident. I always saw it as AN ACCIDENT. A very sad, horrendous and tragic accident. Not an intended event, but an accident. So I guess I don’t.

If it were a high speed police chase than I could see it being a sin, but the OP was on her way to Mass not escaping a bank robbery. Like I said, I’m a lost soul apparently because I just don’t see this going anywhere. I’m not able to see your point and you can’t see mine.

The Oregon Department of Transportation no longer uses the term “accident”, but instead uses the word “crash.” This is because many, if not most, motor vehicle crashes and injuries are due to poor decision-making, not the hand of blind chance.

In our times, we all know that if we drink alcohol to a degree that impairs our reaction time or decision-making ability and then choose to drive a car, we put ourselves and others at unnecessary risk. If we choose to pass on a blind corner, we put ourselves and others at unnecessary risk. We know that when drinking and driving or illegal passing is less common, traffic-related deaths fall precipitously. That means that someone, somewhere in the state of Oregon is going to die unnecessarily because someone took that same risk. We are morally bound to avoid doing that. It is a unethical habit to nit-pick about whether or not something that could get someone killed is “venial” or “mortal”. Just don’t do it.

You have to live, you can’t live in fear, but we are bound to take prudent precautions in order to preserve ourselves and others from avoidable serious harm. It is certainly not too much to ask that people strenuously avoid running red lights, let’s just say that. The truth is, I had an acquaintance that used to “time” lights, so that he knew the light would be green when he breezed into the intersection. He never broke the law, but he was in two accidents with someone running a red light in the few years I knew him. Even what he was doing was dangerous, and morally speaking he ought to have driven more defensively. He could have gotten somebody killed, all so he could get places a few minutes quicker.

 

[Rachel126]

No one can ever convince me that she committed mortal sin by running a light. Sorry, I guess my conscience is malformed.

yours and mine both, friend.

 

[ajecphotos]

Maybe i am getting too scrupulous

 

[Rachel126]

I realize this, but if God is so hard on us that even running a stop light is a mortal sin, then I am 100% positive that all of us die in a state of mortal sin. Each and every one of us carries around much more severe offenses than this without ever confessing them, repenting from them, doing penance for them.

I agree with you.

 

[PietroPaolo]

To be honest, I have seen hundreds of accidents over the years as I am sure we all have. Not once did I stop and think, “That man (or woman or kid) committed a mortal sin by failing to yield/running the light/speeding…” even in a fatal accident. I always saw it as AN ACCIDENT. A very sad, horrendous and tragic accident. Not an intended event, but an accident. So I guess I don’t.

If it were a high speed police chase than I could see it being a sin, but the OP was on her way to Mass not escaping a bank robbery. Like I said, I’m a lost soul apparently because I just don’t see this going anywhere. I’m not able to see your point and you can’t see mine.

I can see your point, I just disagree with it. Do you disagree with St. Thomas from the Summa as I quoted above and with St. Paul? - *“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” *(Romans 13:1-2). Catholic moral theology has understood this to mean that breaking the law is immoral as long as the law is just (cf. CCC 1899).

 

[Rachel126]

I can see your point, I just disagree with it. Do you disagree with St. Thomas from the Summa as I quoted above and with St. Paul? - *“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” *(Romans 13:1-2). Catholic moral theology has understood this to mean that breaking the law is immoral as long as the law is just (cf. CCC 1899).

I suppose, for me, this is a matter of degrees, and of conscience. Example: An elderly Catholic woman on very limited means owns a cat. Her city requires her to pay a fee and get a cat license. She never got one (these laws are often ignored). Is this immoral of her? Is it a sin? Does it arise to the level of mortal sin? Should she confess it? In all likelihood, in the real world, it would probably not even occur to this woman to confess something like this. We can have theological debates all day long, but in reality, most people’s conscience would not be bothered by this, unless they had a very scrupulous conscience.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I suppose, for me, this is a matter of degrees, and of conscience. Example: An elderly Catholic woman on very limited means owns a cat. Her city requires her to pay a fee and get a cat license. She never got one (these laws are often ignored). Is this immoral of her? Is it a sin? Does it arise to the level of mortal sin? Should she confess it? In all likelihood, in the real world, it would probably not even occur to this woman to confess something like this. We can have theological debates all day long, but in reality, most people’s conscience would not be bothered by this, unless they had a very scrupulous conscience.

We can agree that it is a matter of degrees and that breaking some laws would only be venial sins while breaking others would be mortal sins. I would, however, hesitate to use the standard of if someone’s conscience is bothered to be the determiner of whether or not an act is immoral. E.g. most people’s conscience would not be bothered if they divorced and remarried, yet we know this is an act of adultery and thus breaks the 9th commandment and therefore is immoral and gravely so.

 

[7armyrugrats]

I never said running a light was smart. But stupid and sinful are not the same thing. As for laws being just vs unjust, that I don’t know. But if that is an accurate interpretation of the catechism then our priests and bishops need to address it. Not a single priest I have spoken with has ever thought that you need confession because you got a traffic ticket, and the priest in the OP didn’t either.

Easter Joy–I’ve never been to Oregon so I don’t know what the DoT in Oregon says, but here in KY and TN, you are still issued accident reports and that is how it is broadcast on the news as well. My dad was a detective for 25 yrs and worked many accident scenes during that time. And honestly I pray that the term accident isn’t gotten rid of because that is a dangerous precedent to set in life. If we all must constantly make perfect decisions with perfect results we might as well give up. Things happen. We deal the best we can. No one has ever reached perfection aside from Jesus and Mary.

 

[Rachel126]

We can agree that it is a matter of degrees and that breaking some laws would only be venial sins while breaking others would be mortal sins. I would, however, hesitate to use the standard of if someone’s conscience is bothered to be the determiner of whether or not an act is immoral. E.g. most people’s conscience would not be bothered if they divorced and remarried, yet we know this is an act of adultery and thus breaks the 9th commandment and therefore is immoral and gravely so.

There is much debate about conscience. The Church has always upheld the primacy of the individual conscience. You are correct though that there is a fine line between conscience and simple rationalization. Only God knows what is in someone’s heart.

 

[PietroPaolo]

There is much debate about conscience. The Church has always upheld the primacy of the individual conscience. You are correct though that there is a fine line between conscience and simple rationalization. Only God knows what is in someone’s heart.

The Church has always upheld the primacy of the individual conscience when it is properly formed. Having a malformed conscience is not a free pass to commit immoral acts. (cf CCC 1783)

 

[PietroPaolo]

I never said running a light was smart. But stupid and sinful are not the same thing. As for laws being just vs unjust, that I don’t know. But if that is an accurate interpretation of the catechism then our priests and bishops need to address it. Not a single priest I have spoken with has ever thought that you need confession because you got a traffic ticket, and the priest in the OP didn’t either.

Easter Joy–I’ve never been to Oregon so I don’t know what the DoT in Oregon says, but here in KY and TN, you are still issued accident reports and that is how it is broadcast on the news as well. My dad was a detective for 25 yrs and worked many accident scenes during that time. And honestly I pray that the term accident isn’t gotten rid of because that is a dangerous precedent to set in life. If we all must constantly make perfect decisions with perfect results we might as well give up. Things happen. We deal the best we can. No one has ever reached perfection aside from Jesus and Mary.

Is it an accident when someone wrecks because they freely chose to run a stop light? A accident would be if someone’s breaks suddenly stopped functioning and their car ran through the light - here the person wouldn’t be culpable. Choosing to break a law and put others at serious rick, including risk of death, because you are late is not an accident but a case of criminal negligence and would be prosecuted as such by a court if someone had in fact been killed. Christ didn’t die on a cross and give the power to forgive sins to His Church for nothing. He knew we were sinners all and that we need His Mercy.

 

[7armyrugrats]

There is much debate about conscience. The Church has always upheld the primacy of the individual conscience. You are correct though that there is a fine line between conscience and simple rationalization. Only God knows what is in someone’s heart.

Yes, I agree. I can’t see how God would micromanage every aspect of how we are to make it through this life. If that was His goal we would have no need for the ability to reason. Often people try to reason too much, other times not enough.

My current pastor had a sermon a couple of weeks ago that cautioned against over thinking actions trying to find if it is sinful or not. He said doubts come from the deceiver, not from the creator. If you do have lingering doubts, ask to speak to a priest or go to confession. If it is a sin, the priest will inform you–that’s their job! If the priest says it isn’t, let it go. Any doubts that remain come from the devil not from the Lord.

 

[EasterJoy]

I never said running a light was smart. But stupid and sinful are not the same thing. As for laws being just vs unjust, that I don’t know. But if that is an accurate interpretation of the catechism then our priests and bishops need to address it. Not a single priest I have spoken with has ever thought that you need confession because you got a traffic ticket, and the priest in the OP didn’t either.

Easter Joy–I’ve never been to Oregon so I don’t know what the DoT in Oregon says, but here in KY and TN, you are still issued accident reports and that is how it is broadcast on the news as well. My dad was a detective for 25 yrs and worked many accident scenes during that time. And honestly I pray that the term accident isn’t gotten rid of because that is a dangerous precedent to set in life. If we all must constantly make perfect decisions with perfect results we might as well give up. Things happen. We deal the best we can. No one has ever reached perfection aside from Jesus and Mary.

*No one has ever reached perfection aside from Jesus and Mary…*does not mean that the pursuit of perfection is a fool’s errand. I’m not talking about condemning people for being less than perfect. I’m talking about considering it part of our moral life to expect consistently lawful and responsible behavior from ourselves. There is a big difference. St. Teresa of Avila was not a masochist.

I’ve heard a priest say in a homily that when he himself broke the traffic laws because he was impatient (and it was an understandable impatience, mind you) that this was an example of sin…his theme was the problem with thinking the rules don’t apply to us. He is a very good confessor, and would never beat up on anyone in the confessional, but if I were to confess irresponsible driving, whether I got ticketed or not, he would not correct me as being too scrupulous. Confessing that you went too fast and didn’t realize it but reduced your speed as soon as you did…that is scrupulous, sure. Traffic law is still part of moral law.

I am not talking about making perfect decisions, I’m talking about expecting ourselves to make a pattern of responsible decisions. I don’t know any paramedics or traffic officers who think it is “just an accident” when somebody passes illegally or drives drunk or otherwise abdicates their responsibility as a driver and gets someone else killed. It’s tragic, but it is not “just an accident”. It is even a greater tragedy, after all, when a tragedy was totally preventable with a relatively small amount of self-control, self-discipline, and attentiveness to the task at hand.

I’m also not saying there are not lots of true accidents in life. When your equipment fails in spite of proper maintenance, when you do your best to drive according to the conditions but find the conditions were worse than you thought, when some thing surprises you and you just react, that’s something accidental.

IOW, the idea here is not to accuse. The idea is to properly form our consciences. There are enough unpreventable dangers in life, that we ought to exert ourselves to prevent that which is prevented without much difficulty. Buckle up, it isn’t that hard. Wait for the light to be green, it’s not that hard. Don’t drink and drive, it’s not that hard. The life you save could be your own, but whoever the life belongs to, it is most certainly part of our moral life to be mindful of the sacred and precious nature of life.

 

[EasterJoy]

My current pastor had a sermon a couple of weeks ago that cautioned against over thinking actions trying to find if it is sinful or not. He said doubts come from the deceiver, not from the creator. If you do have lingering doubts, ask to speak to a priest or go to confession. If it is a sin, the priest will inform you–that’s their job! If the priest says it isn’t, let it go. Any doubts that remain come from the devil not from the Lord.

The saints have taught a total aversion to even the smallest sin. The deceiver will torment with doubt, but the deceiver also lulls the lax soul farther into laxity. I have also, unfortunately, known priests to have given objectively wrong advice. Of course the person is not culpable for believing their confessor, I do not mean that your priest is wrong about that! Still, we are bound to properly form our consciences, and if it seems we may have gotten the wrong idea from our confessor–either in being too strict or too lax–we are bound to find out the true answer to our moral dilemma. We cannot just say, “oh, my priest says it is OK” and go our merry way. It doesn’t work like that.

He makes this good point, though: In the moral life, there is almost always a ditch on both sides of the road, and the deceiver does not much care which side of the narrow road we fall off of. That is a very good point to remember. There is a moral peril to being too strict, and not just in being too lax.

 

[Rachel126]

The Church has always upheld the primacy of the individual conscience when it is properly formed. Having a malformed conscience is not a free pass to commit immoral acts. (cf CCC 1783)

How does one know if they have a malformed conscience? Is it always their fault? Could other factors be at work? Is it always black and white? Isn’t the formation of our conscience a lifelong endeavor? I can think of things I did when I was young that now I see were wrong, and I would not do them today, but at the time, I genuinely saw nothing wrong with certain decisions and actions. Maybe you call that a malformed conscience. I guess I call it immaturity. Or simple humanity.

 

[7armyrugrats]

There is real harm done by well meaning people who over criticize and find sin where no sin exists. If my only interaction with the Catholic Church was this thread, I would run far far away! Yes, we are all sinners, but not everything we do us a sin. And if I truly believed that the Church taught that traffic violations whether or not a ticket was issued, a “crash” as you typed it occured, someone was hurt or killed, or in this case nothing happened at all as a result except arriving to Mass, than I could not in good conscience remain a member of the Church. People do real harm to themselves, to others, and even the faith when we start all the “Is this a sin?” stuff. Priest said no sin. Let it go

 

[PietroPaolo]

How does one know if they have a malformed conscience? Is it always their fault? Could other factors be at work? Is it always black and white? Isn’t the formation of our conscience a lifelong endeavor? I can think of things I did when I was young that now I see were wrong, and I would not do them today, but at the time, I genuinely saw nothing wrong with certain decisions and actions. Maybe you call that a malformed conscience. I guess I call it immaturity. Or simple humanity.

Moral immaturity is the definition of a malformed conscience. I’m not sure I’d risk shrugging off mortal sin under the claim that it is “simply human” - as you know, we are fallen creatures inclined to sin (concupiscence) and inclined to see our own sins as mere youthful indiscretions or accidents or ‘not my fault.’ As the Catechism tells us, correctly forming our consciences is "indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings (CCC 1783). Thus we know if our conscience is malformed if it runs counter to established Church teachings, e.g. a homosexual man might think engaging in sexual relations with other men is a-okay, but this is not a free pass to sin, it is a sign of a terribly malformed conscience.

 

[PietroPaolo]

There is real harm done by well meaning people who over criticize and find sin where no sin exists. If my only interaction with the Catholic Church was this thread, I would run far far away! Yes, we are all sinners, but not everything we do us a sin. And if I truly believed that the Church taught that traffic violations whether or not a ticket was issued, a “crash” as you typed it occured, someone was hurt or killed, or in this case nothing happened at all as a result except arriving to Mass, than I could not in good conscience remain a member of the Church. People do real harm to themselves, to others, and even the faith when we start all the “Is this a sin?” stuff. Priest said no sin. Let it go

I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove. A particular person’s reaction to a teaching is hardly a measure of whether or not a teaching is true. When Christ taught His followers that they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life many found it a “hard saying” and left Him - i.e. they “could not in good conscience remain a member of the Church” - but that doesn’t disprove His words anymore than your desire to flee the Church would disprove the immorality of willfully breaking the law. Sometimes the Truth drives people away, that isn’t the fault of the Truth but of sinful mankind for as John reminds us men often prefer darkness to the light (cf. John 3:19).