Is running a red light grave sin?

[EasterJoy]

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?

Well, it is a misuse of the sacrament to confess something that you know very well is not a sin, yes. What is at issue is not “wasting the priest’s time”, but rather in knowingly using a sacrament to accomplish some end for which it was never intended. The priest could have all of the time in the world on his hands, and he still won’t want you doing that.

Besides, as others in this thread have pointed out, there is harm to be found in becoming scrupulous. There is certainly also harm in teaching your children that guilty feelings are an unswerving indication of actual moral guilt. You can feel very guilty and yet be guilty of nothing (and therefore should not confess) and you can feel nothing but pleasure at what you did and yet know with certainty that what you must do is to repent, turn from the act, confess and make what amends you can, because your correctly-formed conscience tells you this.

So no, you don’t want to teach her that if something she did results in a death that she is automatically guilty. That is wrong. Heaven forbid, but if she ever gets in a crash that is not her fault and kills someone, how is she going to let go of an act that she didn’t even commit? If you did something that is actually wrong, you can repent from that, because you were at fault and you have something to turn from. If you did nothing wrong, what do you turn from, though? From being yourself? From being unfortunate?

There is such a thing as a real tragedy, and there are accidents that you see, but only in retrospect, that you could have avoided. Teach your child about what is a sin, but also teach her what is a lesson learned. There is a lot of overlap, but they are not the same thing, and the difference is important.

 

[mek42]

Well, it is a misuse of the sacrament to confess something that you know very well is not a sin, yes. What is at issue is not “wasting the priest’s time”, but rather in knowingly using a sacrament to accomplish some end for which it was never intended. The priest could have all of the time in the world on his hands, and he still won’t want you doing that.

Besides, as others in this thread have pointed out, there is harm to be found in becoming scrupulous. There is certainly also harm in teaching your children that guilty feelings are an unswerving indication of actual moral guilt. You can feel very guilty and yet be guilty of nothing (and therefore should not confess) and you can feel nothing but pleasure at what you did and yet know with certainty that what you must do is to repent, turn from the act, confess and make what amends you can, because your correctly-formed conscience tells you this.

The people here posting “Is this a sin?” do not know whether they have sinned or not, else they wouldn’t be posting. Assuming that it is possible to not know one has committed a mortal sin (I’m a bit unclear on this), isn’t one putting their soul at risk, as per RC doctrine, by not seeking absolution of something they feel is wrong but they do not know if it is a mortal sin?

So no, you don’t want to teach her that if something she did results in a death that she is automatically guilty. That is wrong. Heaven forbid, but if she ever gets in a crash that is not her fault and kills someone, how is she going to let go of an act that she didn’t even commit? If you did something that is actually wrong, you can repent from that, because you were at fault and you have something to turn from. If you did nothing wrong, what do you turn from, though? From being yourself? From being unfortunate?

There is such a thing as a real tragedy, and there are accidents that you see, but only in retrospect, that you could have avoided. Teach your child about what is a sin, but also teach her what is a lesson learned. There is a lot of overlap, but they are not the same thing, and the difference is important.

I, personally - and please keep in mind that I’m lapsed, non-practicing - do want my daughter to eventually have an appreciation of the possible horrible consequences our actions may have and to wisely consider her choices. I do want her to know that taking a life is a serious action, even if justified, such as defense or war. I have long thought that the killing a soldier does is a greater sacrifice for country than dying.

Conversely, if she is not at fault in a fatal MVA, she, by definition, did not cause the death.

I am bothered by the apparent cavalier dismissal of the killing of the unborn seagull by members of a group known for a staunch objection to abortion. If nothing else, the act, to me (again, me, personally, I’m probably in the bottom five people on this forum to judge how the Church sees it), is negligently poor stewardship of the natural world.

 

[EasterJoy]

The people here posting “Is this a sin?” do not know whether they have sinned or not, else they wouldn’t be posting. Assuming that it is possible to not know one has committed a mortal sin (I’m a bit unclear on this), isn’t one putting their soul at risk, as per RC doctrine, by not seeking absolution of something they feel is wrong but they do not know if it is a mortal sin?

I, personally - and please keep in mind that I’m lapsed, non-practicing - do want my daughter to eventually have an appreciation of the possible horrible consequences our actions may have and to wisely consider her choices. I do want her to know that taking a life is a serious action, even if justified, such as defense or war. I have long thought that the killing a soldier does is a greater sacrifice for country than dying.

Conversely, if she is not at fault in a fatal MVA, she, by definition, did not cause the death.

I am bothered by the apparent cavalier dismissal of the killing of the unborn seagull by members of a group known for a staunch objection to abortion. If nothing else, the act, to me (again, me, personally, I’m probably in the bottom five people on this forum to judge how the Church sees it), is negligently poor stewardship of the natural world.

First off, let’s review the Case of the Seagull:

Walking with my daughter today we saw a Seagull sitting on the soil and I said to her watch me as I scare it. I grabbed a small stone and threw it up in the air hoping it would land very close to it. Well, it landed on the gull, the gull jumped and unbeknownsed to me, It was sitting on a nest! The stone broke one of the eggs in the nest!

No bird inside the egg just goo.

I felt mortified!

Was it a sin? Should I confess?

The person who threw the rock not only had no intention of hurting a bird, she had no knowledge that she was anywhere near a nest. I know a guy once who loaded a gun full of buckshot, in order to scare off some deer in his garden. This shot was so light, he’d have consented to have someone shoot him with it if they caught him in their garden. What happens? One of the deer drops…dead! He couldn’t find a mark on him, not even blood coming out of an ear. As nearly as he can tell, the deer had a heart attack. He did not have any intention of killing the deer, that was not poaching out of season, and that situation is very much like the situation of ajecphotos. It is not that no one cares about unborn seagulls. It is that sometimes doing something unadvisable is a lot more unadvisable than anyone could possibly have known it was.

Nobody is saying not to go to confession if you know you’ve done something wrong…you don’t have to know whether something is mortal or venial to confess it. You don’t have to go to Holy Communion every single Sunday, either, and if occasionally you refrain out of respect for the sacrament, then there is nothing wrong with that. (If you’re refraining on a frequent basis over sins that turn out later to not have been serious, the issue of scrupulosity does arise, and should not be ignored.) It is also not advisable to teach your children that everything you regret afterwards was a sin you could have avoided. That isn’t right, and it isn’t how to form a correct conscience in a child.

Yes, of course we ought to teach our children to consider the outcome of their choices, to not act thoughtlessly. Conversely, however, we also need to teach them not to be mortified of doing anything, lest they commit some awful crime unintentionally. We do not want them beating themselves up after every serious mishap. This is one of the advantages of doing the work to properly inform your conscience. That way, you know at the time you’re acting what the principles are that you ought to be following. If you examine your properly-formed conscience regularly and go to confession on a regular basis, you’ll learn how to avoid the thoughtless sin without going through life with spiritual white knuckles, so to speak. That is the goal.

So–most of the time, breaking a traffic law is not the equivalent of playing Russian roulette, and so while it is a sin to willfully break a civil law that is not unjust, most of the time it is not a mortal sin. This includes pushing yellows or squeaking through reds (as opposed to simply ignoring stoplights altogether). Still, there are cases where breaking traffic law does put life in that sort of danger, and that is when it is a mortal sin. That could include sneaking in a red on certain intersections (although not in most places on a Sunday morning when traffic is light). If you hit someone and kill them, sometimes you could have known whether you were taking a mortal risk when you made the decision and sometimes you could not. The decision does not become mortal in gravity retroactively, that is what I am trying to get across. Not everyone whose driving kills someone is guilty of a mortal sin, and not everyone who has not managed to kill anyone yet should consider themselves free of serious sins with respect to their driving habits. That’s all that I’m saying.

 

[BettyBoop416]

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?

 

[Deus_tecum]

What I have noticed in life is that those people who tend to be overly legalistic in regard to sin are often also tense and irritable. What good does it do to obey all the traffic laws perfectly and then go home and berate the wife and kids (for example)?

Furthermore, trading intellectual barbs, pontifications, and “proof” to defend a position on such a trivial issue is nothing more than a magnification of self. Isn’t that the self we are called to die to? This is a problem I find in all Christendom. Most people merely exchange a worldly ego for a church ego, and that is not death of self.

 

[EasterJoy]

What I have noticed in life is that those people who tend to be overly legalistic in regard to sin are often also tense and irritable. What good does it do to obey all the traffic laws perfectly and then go home and berate the wife and kids (for example)?

Furthermore, trading intellectual barbs, pontifications, and “proof” to defend a position on such a trivial issue is nothing more than a magnification of self. Isn’t that the self we are called to die to? This is a problem I find in all Christendom. Most people merely exchange a worldly ego for a church ego, and that is not death of self.

While it is worthwhile to avoid legalism–that is, to prudently and compassionately approach an intersection as if you may have to give way to someone who is not following the rules, for instance–I haven’t noticed a negative correlation between self-control in driving and self-control in how we act towards others. It is not uncommon for someone who is a terror to his wife and children to be a terror towards other drivers, too.

As for the “legalism”, if you read my posts I hope you will see that my intent was to keep people from being injured and cars from being wrecked. I have noticed, BTW, that there are not a few people who hate “legalism” who actually hate anyone telling them what to do. Again, the road has a ditch on either side.

 

[Fairwinds]

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.

imagine the outrage if you’d actually committed a sin.

 

[7armyrugrats]

What I have noticed in life is that those people who tend to be overly legalistic in regard to sin are often also tense and irritable. What good does it do to obey all the traffic laws perfectly and then go home and berate the wife and kids (for example)?

Furthermore, trading intellectual barbs, pontifications, and “proof” to defend a position on such a trivial issue is nothing more than a magnification of self. Isn’t that the self we are called to die to? This is a problem I find in all Christendom. Most people merely exchange a worldly ego for a church ego, and that is not death of self.

 

[7armyrugrats]

imagine the outrage if you’d actually committed a sin.

Yeah really

 

[mek42]

EasterJoy - I very much appreciate your reply to my post. I actually agree with most of your reply. My negligence awareness meter may be running high due to a recent fire investigation class I took as a volunteer firefighter. At any rate, beyond saying thank you for your clarity, any quibbles I have are beyond the scope of this thread - if they persist I can always start my own thread.

 

[EasterJoy]

…to defend a position on such a trivial issue is nothing more than a magnification of self…that is not death of self.

BTW, most people consider getting killed in a car accident a sort of a “death of self” that ought to be taken to account. Just sayin’.

This is an excerpt from Anna Sewell’s novel Black Beauty. Consider substitution “carelessness” for “ignorance”:

*For awhile both men sat silent, and then Tom Green said in a low voice:

“I wish, John, you’d say a bit of a kind word to Joe. The boy is quite broken-hearted; he can’t eat his meals, and he can’t smile. He says he knows it was all his fault, though he is sure he did the best he knew, and he says if Beauty dies no one will ever speak to him again. It goes to my heart to hear him. I think you might give him just a word; he is not a bad boy.”

After a short pause John said slowly, “You must not be too hard upon me, Tom. I know he meant no harm, I never said he did; I know he is not a bad boy. But you see, I am sore myself; that horse is the pride of my heart, to say nothing of his being such a favorite with the master and mistress; and to think that his life may be flung away in this manner is more than I can bear. But if you think I am hard on the boy I will try to give him a good word to-morrow – that is, I mean if Beauty is better.”

“Well, John, thank you. I knew you did not wish to be too hard, and I am glad you see it was only ignorance.”

John’s voice almost startled me as he answered:

“Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don’t you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness? – and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say, `Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm,’ they think it is all right. I suppose Martha Mulwash did not mean to kill that baby when she dosed it with Dalby and soothing syrups; but she did kill it, and was tried for manslaughter.”

“And serve her right, too,” said Tom. “A woman should not undertake to nurse a tender little child without knowing what is good and what is bad for it.”

“Bill Starkey,” continued John, “did not mean to frighten his brother into fits when he dressed up like a ghost and ran after him in the moonlight; but he did; and that bright, handsome little fellow, that might have been the pride of any mother’s heart is just no better than an idiot, and never will be, if he lives to be eighty years old. You were a good deal cut up yourself, Tom, two weeks ago, when those young ladies left your hothouse door open, with a frosty east wind blowing right in; you said it killed a good many of your plants.”

“A good many!” said Tom; “there was not one of the tender cuttings that was not nipped off. I shall have to strike all over again, and the worst of it is that I don’t know where to go to get fresh ones. I was nearly mad when I came in and saw what was done.”

“And yet,” said John, “I am sure the young ladies did not mean it; it was only ignorance.”

I heard no more of this conversation, for the medicine did well and sent me to sleep, and in the morning I felt much better; but I often thought of John’s words when I came to know more of the world*

 

[EasterJoy]

imagine the outrage if you’d actually committed a sin.

Please point out to me where I unintentionally expressed outrage?

 

[7armyrugrats]

Next time I get cut off, instead of thinking, “You idiot!” I think I’ll just yell, “You sinful driver! You better go to confession!”

I know many people who follow all the rules still they are jerks. That was why Jesus gave us the Beattitudes. Many people weren’t breaking the commandments and still were not pleasant to be around. People get too tied up in appearances instead of actually making things work. As long as it looks good to others (following the traffic laws), it doesn’t matter if it really is how I behave in private (sulking when things don’t go my way). I do not mean that anyone here is like this. I have no idea if that’s the case, but it is a growing problem in our country and declaring a bad decision as sinful isn’t helpful.

 

[Fairwinds]

Please point out to me where I unintentionally expressed outrage?

I’m not going to review your posts. my comment was to the OP, not you. if you think it was addressed to you, well, examine your own conscience.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not going to review your posts. my comment was to the OP, not you. if you think it was addressed to you, well, examine your own conscience.

Ah, I see. “Imagine the outrage” had nothing to do with anything you gathered from actually reading the posts. Well, that’s OK, then!

 

[Fairwinds]

Ah, I see. “Imagine the outrage” had nothing to do with anything you gathered from actually reading the posts. Well, that’s OK, then!

yes, did find the outrage amusing. its been a fun thread. even the OP thinks so.

I’m waiting for someone to get a parking ticket, that should be fun. maybe only a venial sin though, but if it were in a handicap zone, them maybe mortal.

 

[EasterJoy]

Next time I get cut off, instead of thinking, “You idiot!” I think I’ll just yell, “You sinful driver! You better go to confession!”

I know many people who follow all the rules still they are jerks. That was why Jesus gave us the Beattitudes. Many people weren’t breaking the commandments and still were not pleasant to be around. People get too tied up in appearances instead of actually making things work. As long as it looks good to others (following the traffic laws), it doesn’t matter if it really is how I behave in private (sulking when things don’t go my way). I do not mean that anyone here is like this. I have no idea if that’s the case, but it is a growing problem in our country and declaring a bad decision as sinful isn’t helpful.

When I had young children in the back of the car, I had to learn to say: Oooo…that man was…NOT SAFE!!

 

[EasterJoy]

yes, did find the outrage amusing. its been a fun thread. even the OP thinks so.

I’m waiting for someone to get a parking ticket, that should be fun. maybe only a venial sin though, but if it were in a handicap zone, them maybe mortal.

I probably should apologize for over-personalizing this question. The problem here may be my actual experience with the widespread sentiment that of course nice people ought to allow themselves to run red lights. When you live somewhere where you can almost count on there still being cars going through an intersection every time the light turns green, it is a lot less amusing.

 

[7armyrugrats]

When I had young children in the back of the car, I had to learn to say: Oooo…that man was…NOT SAFE!!

That’s a good one! I think I will say that.

I haven’t meant to be disrespectful to you or anyone else. I just think that there is a better way for us to bring people to the Church then listing all the ways we sin and making every bad decision into a sin.

 

[Fairwinds]

I probably should apologize for over-personalizing this question. The problem here may be my actual experience with the widespread sentiment that of course nice people ought to allow themselves to run red lights. When you live somewhere where you can almost count on there still being cars going through an intersection every time the light turns green, it is a lot less amusing.

I hear that’s a regional thing. my experience in the car-centered culture of soCal and the southwest is that running lights is uncommon. we do, however, have the California rolling stop.