Is running a red light grave sin?

[EasterJoy]

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.

No, no, fear not! It is not always black and white and it is not something to obsess over. In every other area of life that you really care about, you keep learning over the course of your life how to get a deeper understanding of what you’re doing, right? You don’t just say, “Oh, well, I’m doing my best, what else can anybody expect?”, nor, one would hope, do you advance in your profession by a white-knuckled fear that you don’t know as much as you ought to know.

A correctly-formed conscience–that is, a conscience formed according to the revealed truth taught by the Church and the maturity of judgment that comes with the gifts of the Holy Spirit-- is just like that. Just as you neither dress down a Little Leaguer who does not know the finer points of the game nor do you just let him go without training him up in them, so with your moral conscience. Remember, after all, that the laws of the Lord are like gold, sweeter than honey. It is a good thing to learn more and more about how to live in God’s ways! Because just as learning the ins and outs of a sport will lead to confidence and a high level of performance, just so it is with learning the moral law. It is the path to becoming a saint, to living in joy in the ways of the Lord. It is that way in all things worthy of doing with excellence, and whether we live according to the deep reality of the moral law is on the top of that list. It does not shackle; it frees. It does not fill us with fear but gives us guidance, and therefore confidence.

 

[EasterJoy]

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

So you think that it is morally the same to drive drunk and get home safely as it is to drive drunk and get someone killed? You think the sin is in whether or not you actually killed someone? My atheist philosophy professor would have snorted at a moral code like that.

I think you’re confusing the morality of an action with the culpability of the person acting, but more on that later…

 

[PietroPaolo]

So you think that it is morally the same to drive drunk and get home safely as it is to drive drunk and get someone killed? You think the sin is in whether or not you actually killed someone? My atheist philosophy professor would have snorted at a moral code like that.

I think you’re confusing the morality of an action with the culpability of the person acting, but more on that later…

Which is consequentialism which is condemned by the Church (b/c good ends never justify evil means).

 

[Rachel126]

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.

Then why did God give us a conscience in the first place? If there’s nothing more to it than learning, memorizing and following the church’s teachings, why do we have a conscience? we don’t need it, according to what you said–we just follow the church’s teachings and that’s that.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Then why did God give us a conscience in the first place? If there’s nothing more to it than learning, memorizing and following the church’s teachings, why do we have a conscience? we don’t need it, according to what you said–we just follow the church’s teachings and that’s that.

Why do you think God gave us a Church then? If we are to just do whatever feels right, why did Christ empower the Church to teach authoritatively?

God gave us a conscience because the Church can only lay out general principals but cannot apply them to every situation we encounter in life. A properly formed conscience, one that is formed in line with Church teachings, can guide us on an issue like “should I run this red light.” Being guided by our conscience is not the same thing as doing whatever we think is right - there is one answer to the question “should I run this red light” even though two different consciences might suggest two different courses of action.

 

[Rachel126]

Why do you think God gave us a Church then? If we are to just do whatever feels right, why did Christ empower the Church to teach authoritatively?

God gave us a conscience because the Church can only lay out general principals but cannot apply them to every situation we encounter in life. A properly formed conscience, one that is formed in line with Church teachings, can guide us on an issue like “should I run this red light.” Being guided by our conscience is not the same thing as doing whatever we think is right - there is one answer to the question “should I run this red light” even though two different consciences might suggest two different courses of action.

I think you are a bit more of an absolutist than I am.

 

[7armyrugrats]

So you think that it is morally the same to drive drunk and get home safely as it is to drive drunk and get someone killed? You think the sin is in whether or not you actually killed someone? My atheist philosophy professor would have snorted at a moral code like that.

I think you’re confusing the morality of an action with the culpability of the person acting, but more on that later…

No, I didn’t say that at all. Drunk driving is wrong regardless, but I still don’t see how drunk driving relates to the OP. Nothing there was said about drunk driving

 

[PietroPaolo]

I think you are a bit more of an absolutist than I am.

Mea doctrina non est mea.

 

[PietroPaolo]

No, I didn’t say that at all. Drunk driving is wrong regardless, but I still don’t see how drunk driving relates to the OP. Nothing there was said about drunk driving

Drunk driving is a violation of traffic laws as is running a red light. They seem closely related to me, but perhaps Easter Joy has a better answer…

 

[7armyrugrats]

Why do you think God gave us a Church then? If we are to just do whatever feels right, why did Christ empower the Church to teach authoritatively?

God gave us a conscience because the Church can only lay out general principals but cannot apply them to every situation we encounter in life. A properly formed conscience, one that is formed in line with Church teachings, can guide us on an issue like “should I run this red light.” Being guided by our conscience is not the same thing as doing whatever we think is right - there is one answer to the question “should I run this red light” even though two different consciences might suggest two different courses of action.

Yes, but no where have I seen a Church doctrine on safe driving. A properly formed conscience is aligned with the catechism. The chapter on driving etiquette is where? Lots of things we do could kill someone. It doesn’t mean that what we are doing is sinful. Stupid maybe, but not sinful.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, but no where have I seen a Church doctrine on safe driving. A properly formed conscience is aligned with the catechism. The chapter on driving etiquette is where? Lots of things we do could kill someone. It doesn’t mean that what we are doing is sinful. Stupid maybe, but not sinful.

*CCC 2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. the moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.70

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is **not exonerated *from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

With a correctly-formed conscience, this is enough to let you know you do not get to blow through red lights, pass on blind corners, or drive drunk. You don’t require the Church to draw a picture for you.

Honestly, I cannot believe we are even discussing something that even the secular humanists know out of mere acceptance of natural law!

 

[PietroPaolo]

Yes, but no where have I seen a Church doctrine on safe driving. A properly formed conscience is aligned with the catechism. The chapter on driving etiquette is where? Lots of things we do could kill someone. It doesn’t mean that what we are doing is sinful. Stupid maybe, but not sinful.

That’s exactly why we must have a well formed conscience so that we can apply “thou shall not kill” in the myriad of situations which we encounter every day. We can’t simply say “oh well, the catechism doesn’t say anything about shoplifting an HDTV from Best Buy, so it must be ok.” The Church lays down a general principal “thou shall not steal” and we have to apply it - “shoplifting an HDTV from Best Buy is stealing, stealing is wrong, therefore shoplifting an HDTV from Best Buy is wrong.” Its like the argument you hear from SSM advocates - “Jesus didn’t say anything about gay marriage so it must not be wrong” no Jesus laid down guiding principals which make homosexual acts sinful just like the catechism lays down general principals which make willfully breaking the law immoral. If you are looking for the catechism to micromanage your life, you’re using it wrong – if that was the Church’s job we wouldn’t need consciences whether well formed or not.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, I didn’t say that at all. Drunk driving is wrong regardless, but I still don’t see how drunk driving relates to the OP. Nothing there was said about drunk driving

Someone who decides they’re allowed to blow through red lights sober will kill me just as dead as someone who decides they’re allowed to drive drunk. Really–why is drunk driving even wrong? It’s wrong because it takes away your ability to make good decisions as a driver. Why would it be OK to make dangerous decisions just because you’re sober? That’s silly.

Now mind you, I’m not talking about approaching an intersection at 4 am, seeing very clearly that there is no one coming for a very long ways, and going through an intersection against a red light. That’s still a traffic violation, but it is not life-endangering. That is very different.

 

[EasterJoy]

Its probably been asked before, but I couldn’t find it in “search.”

While driving to Mass yesterday I saw a traffic light turn yellow. I knew that I had time to stop and that it would be red before I could reach it, but I speeded up instead and went through the red light, knowing that I would have a few “safe” seconds before opposing traffic started to move.

I thought it was probably a stupid decision, but I didn’t think about whether or not it might be serious until I was in line for Communion (and I received the Eucharist anyway ) Sometimes it seems obvious to me that a sin involves grave matter, but other times I would not have known about the seriousness if the Church hadn’t said something about it.

I asked my priest after Mass and he said that it wasn’t a mortal sin to run a red light, but that it would be if there had been an accident; but I’m not sure if he realized that I did it deliberately. Also, I wonder if I received a sacrament sacrilegiously since I had doubts about how serious the incident was.

So - I did something that was probably serious matter, will full knowledge and consent, yet I reasoned that I had time to do it before it became something that could hurt anyone (the delay between my red light and their green light). Does that mitigate the seriousness?

Back to your original question…yes, if you honestly judged that you were putting no one’s life in danger by your traffic violation, that does indeed mitigate the seriousness of your choice.

It was your honest (albeit possibly erroneous) judgment that a driver in your position could proceed as you did without putting anyone’s life and property at a risk beyond the norm for a defensive driver going through a normal busy intersection. You did not commit a mortal sin, because mortal sin requires that you fully consent to an act that you know to be a grave offense against God or neighbor. Either your situation was not in fact something that a reasonable driver would judge to be life-endangering (and therefore not mortal in gravity, even if you had* thought* it was in fact that dangerous) or else you incorrectly but honestly thought that no one’s life would be put in danger by what you were doing (mortal in gravity but not so in your knowledge and intention).

The thing to realize is that if you indulge in a grave level of carelessness, that is a mortal sin. That does not mean that all carelessness constitutes a mortal sin, even carelessness that results in a death, nor that every time you think something is serious that you are guilty of a mortal sin. For instance, if you glance away from the road for a second, that is not usually considered a serious driving error. It can hardly be helped. In the wrong situation, it could get someone killed, but it isn’t the death that makes a sin. What makes the sin is the ability the person acting that caused the death had to have recognized and avoided a serious risk. If the person had the ability to recognize and avoid the risk, and the risk was serious, that is a serious sin. IOW, one person, indulging in a small driving error, might kill someone and yet not be guilty of mortal sin. Another person, indulging in a gravely careless driving error, might not kill anyone and yet be guilty of carelessly taking a life into their hands…kind of like playing Russian roulette, but getting lucky about finding a chamber did not have a bullet in it. Russian roulette is a mortal sin, even if you don’t kill anybody…I’m talking about that level of seriousness of risk, not stop signs in the mall parking lot.

The truth is, a properly formed conscience relieves much more worry than it causes, because you have a reliable inner basis on which to base your moral decisions. You did OK, though, and on no account should you beat yourself up about this.

(It is, however, considered praiseworthy to refrain from Holy Communion when entertaining a doubt will only mean missing the chance to receive for a single Sunday, in exchange for the act of love for the Lord in wanting to avoid even the chance of committing a sacrilege. In that case, you probably don’t have to worry about being overly scrupulous. Still, I think you were pretty sure you had not committed a mortal sin, and that the rest was just worry talking, so I say that more in a “this would have been even better” sense.)

 

[PietroPaolo]

You did not commit a mortal sin, because mortal sin requires that you fully consent to an act that you know to be a grave offense against God or neighbor.

I would add that not knowing something is a grave offense against God or neighbor doesn’t *necessarily *mean an action is not mortally sinful. I mentioned the example of Hitler earlier. He thought he was doing a great good by killing 6 million Jews, he didn’t think he was offending God or neighbor. But this depravity of conscience doesn’t get him off the hook - rather it increases his guilt. The same could be said of a person who doesn’t believe in sin - this complete lack of moral understanding increases guilt rather than diminishing it. Or think of an avowed homosexual who engages in same sex activity thinking it is natural…Examples multiply.

From the Catechism:
CCC 1859 …Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. *

And
*
CCC 1860 …no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. *

Further we certainly know we are not supposed to break the law, therefore I think there is little room to argue for lack of full knowledge and the OP said they could have stopped and thought about it, thus providing deliberate consent. The question of grave matter seems to be settled by the chance of killing people, so I see this as a grave offense (although only God can say whether a mortal sin was truly committed). The OP’s conscience is obviously well formed and was accusing her which also shows that she probably had full knowledge.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would add that not knowing something is a grave offense against God or neighbor doesn’t *necessarily *mean an action is not mortally sinful. I mentioned the example of Hitler earlier. He thought he was doing a great good by killing 6 million Jews, he didn’t think he was offending God or neighbor. But this depravity of conscience doesn’t get him off the hook - rather it increases his guilt. The same could be said of a person who doesn’t believe in sin - this complete lack of moral understanding increases guilt rather than diminishing it. Or think of an avowed homosexual who engages in same sex activity thinking it is natural…Examples multiply.

From the Catechism:
CCC 1859 …Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. *

And
*
CCC 1860 …no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. *

Further we certainly know we are not supposed to break the law, therefore I think there is little room to argue for lack of full knowledge and the OP said they could have stopped and thought about it, thus providing deliberate consent. The question of grave matter seems to be settled by the chance of killing people, so I see this as a grave offense (although only God can say whether a mortal sin was truly committed). The OP’s conscience is obviously well formed and was accusing her which also shows that she probably had full knowledge.

Hitler is not a great example, because Hitler cared for neither God nor neighbor, and in fact tried to stamp out religion entirely so that his fellow Germans would in fact be worshipping him. If he received the kind of Catholic catechesis that would have been typical of a young German under the age of 12, he was in no way unaware of the gravity of what he was doing. So yes, the twisting he applied to his conscience in order to drown his religious education made him morally culpable.

In the example I gave, I was trying to talk about a properly-formed conscience that was incorrect concerning the physical facts of the situation. I meant to say that the driver was unaware of a danger in spite of due diligence. In the OP’s example, suppose that, as is the case when I drive to Mass, you can see that everyone is stopped and someone would really have to gun it to hit your tail as you left the intersection. It would be a bad idea to push the yellow, but OTOH in spite of the frequency of this decision, I also know that fatalities at those intersections are extremely rare, more rare than simply choosing to be on Hwy 26 when the traffic is heavy but moving fast on a Sunday night. Under those circumstances, running under the red is a sin, but I’d be hard-pressed to say the risk was such that it was mortal in gravity.

Still, the clarification is well worth making, because some people seem to think that “following your conscience” is the same as “following what you are personally inclined to assign as desirable or undesirable.” That is not what the Church means by giving primacy to your conscience!!

 

[PietroPaolo]

Still, the clarification is well worth making, because some people seem to think that “following your conscience” is the same as “following what you are personally inclined to assign as desirable or undesirable.” That is not what the Church means by giving primacy to your conscience!!

 

[lovedance4ever]

How could running a red light ever be a grave sin? Where does it say “Thou shalt not run a red light”? If that’s the case, then I guess I’m going to hell ten times over.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

I know I am in trouble if I start a post that reaches 6 pages in one workday…

I won’t try to respond to 6 pages of posts, I’ll just say that I will be confessing in the morning. I feel confident that at least one, if not both (and I think both), of the acts in the first post was mortal; I should not have received the Eucharist in a state of genuine doubt.

 

[mek42]

Is it a sin to waste a priest’s time by seeking advice under the seal of the confessional? If an impure act weighs on someone’s heart, is there harm in them seeking absolution for the benefit of their soul today even if not required for ever after?

Isn’t the ability to provide comfort and respite to one’s spirit a major part of a priest’s job? Even when the priest himself is alien to the need of comfort?

I am certainly in no position to opine whether the acts mentioned in this thread are sins according to the Church. I do, however, sense that the people asking are troubled by their actions. Is it wrong to say to them, “I think that if you are bothered this much by this act, then maybe you should seek absolution whether it be judged sinful or not.”?

As for the parent who killed the unborn seagull, if I were in a similar situation, I would want my little girl (my own daughter is not quite two years old - maybe she wouldn’t understand said lesson today) to see that I was distraught over my negligent act. In this case, were I a practicing Catholic, I would take my little girl with me to confession so that she could see my desire to fix the unfixable act of recklessly ending a life yet to be.

Just because an act is not considered a sin by the church, can not that act still cause spiritual harm to the one who chose the act?