H
holy_moly
Guest
Thanks, just curious…holy moly wrote “Abigail, are you Mary?”
Not this week!
- Status
H
holy_moly
Guest
A
Abigail
Guest
holy moly -
I don’t think the above paragraph supports your argument.
I think you may be misunderstanding the term “near occasion of sin.”
As I understand it, “near occasion of sin” is INTENTIONALLY putting yourself in situations which you are pretty sure will lead you to sin. For example, if you have a problem with drunkenness, a near occasion of sin would be going to bars. If you have a problem with pornography, a near occasion of sin would be going to the home of someone whom you know has pornography and is likely to show it to you. We are thus to avoid situations which we know are likely to weaken our resolve not to sin, and it is a presumption to believe that we will be able to avoid sins while not avoiding what is very likely to cause them. For example, a priest would not be able to absolve a person who confessed to viewing pornography, but refused to give up their job in a pornographic book store. Or a person who confessed to frequent drunkenness, but refused to stop going to bars.
Being determined to avoid a sin does not require that we are successful every time we are tempted, and being unsuccessful and intending to go to confession does not appear to meet any of the conditions for “presumption.”
A
Abigail
Guest
LilyM wrote:
My father may ask me to do something. It may be a very important thing. I may decide to disobey him. Have I done wrong? Yes! Do I genuinely hate and reject my father? No! Is it possible for someone to genuinely hate and reject their father? Yes! But the mere fact that I have disobeyed him doesn’t mean I have done that. The Church recognizes this difference by teaching that there is a distinction between mortal (hatred and rejection) sin and venial (disobedience) sin.
Is it possible to commit a venial sin in connection with our obligation to attend Mass? It is possible to commit venial sins in connection with other obligations set forth in the Ten Commandments and the precepts of the Church. If it isn’t possible in connection with our obligation to worship God, why? If it is possible, what would those situations be?
Isn’t that a little strong? It precludes the distinction between mortal and venial sin.
My father may ask me to do something. It may be a very important thing. I may decide to disobey him. Have I done wrong? Yes! Do I genuinely hate and reject my father? No! Is it possible for someone to genuinely hate and reject their father? Yes! But the mere fact that I have disobeyed him doesn’t mean I have done that. The Church recognizes this difference by teaching that there is a distinction between mortal (hatred and rejection) sin and venial (disobedience) sin.
Is it possible to commit a venial sin in connection with our obligation to attend Mass? It is possible to commit venial sins in connection with other obligations set forth in the Ten Commandments and the precepts of the Church. If it isn’t possible in connection with our obligation to worship God, why? If it is possible, what would those situations be?
H
holy_moly
Guest
Abigail, I didn’t post that info, I just commented on it…
A
Abigail
Guest
My apologies, holy moly! My post should have been directed to jmcrae! 
I just realized that sentence could also be written:
My apologies! Holy moly, my post should have been directed to jmcrae!
I just realized that sentence could also be written:
My apologies! Holy moly, my post should have been directed to jmcrae!
H
holy_moly
Guest
That’s ok, since for the most part I agreed w/ it anyway!My apologies, holy moly! My post should have been directed to jmcrae!
I just realized that sentence could also be written:
My apologies! Holy moly, my post should have been directed to jmcrae!
A
Abigail
Guest
Holy moly, you wrote
It seems to me that s/he is confusing the unusual giving in to unwanted temptation with the refusal to avoid situations which could reasonably be expected to lead to sin. I think its pretty obvious that toying with situations we know are dangerous, and REFUSING to take the necessary steps to avoid sin, is presumption. But that’s not the same thing as simply being tempted and not being able to overcome the temptation.
I also believe there’s a big difference between WANTING to sin and simply not being able to overcome temptation. If there isn’t a difference, then there is no reason for the Church’s distinction between mortal and venial sin.
I would also be very interested in hearing your views on whether it is possible to sin venially in connection with our obligation to attend Mass, as I outlined in my post to LilyM.
I am NOT trying to be argumentative here. I am truly interested in understanding how the Church understands mortal and venial sin. Obviously, issues of seriousness, knowledge/intent and consent are involved. Merely stating that “Not going to Sunday Mass without a grave reason is a mortal sin” is not at all helpful in trying to understand these complicated and interlocking concepts. I posed a hypothetical about Mass which I hoped would highlight these issues because it seemed like something that everyone would understand, but perhaps another hypothetical would be more useful, so I’ll pose one in my next post.
Would you care to comment on jmcrae’s post?
It seems to me that s/he is confusing the unusual giving in to unwanted temptation with the refusal to avoid situations which could reasonably be expected to lead to sin. I think its pretty obvious that toying with situations we know are dangerous, and REFUSING to take the necessary steps to avoid sin, is presumption. But that’s not the same thing as simply being tempted and not being able to overcome the temptation.
I also believe there’s a big difference between WANTING to sin and simply not being able to overcome temptation. If there isn’t a difference, then there is no reason for the Church’s distinction between mortal and venial sin.
I would also be very interested in hearing your views on whether it is possible to sin venially in connection with our obligation to attend Mass, as I outlined in my post to LilyM.
I am NOT trying to be argumentative here.
I am truly interested in understanding how the Church understands mortal and venial sin. Obviously, issues of seriousness, knowledge/intent and consent are involved. Merely stating that “Not going to Sunday Mass without a grave reason is a mortal sin” is not at all helpful in trying to understand these complicated and interlocking concepts. I posed a hypothetical about Mass which I hoped would highlight these issues because it seemed like something that everyone would understand, but perhaps another hypothetical would be more useful, so I’ll pose one in my next post.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Is not the action of neglecting to go to Mass an action of distancing oneself from God, in a quite literal sense by remaining at a physical distance away from where the Mass is taking place?
She might have the feeling of wanting to love and please God, but we love and hate with our actions; not with our feelings.
If we neglect to go to Mass, then, regardless of what we are feeling inside, it’s by our actions that we are hating God - we are placing something else ahead of God - sleep, work, play, or whatever the case may be. God forbids this in the First Commandment. We are to put God first, especially on His Day.
Hate is not a feeling - hate is the action of neglecting and being too busy to bother, just as love is not a feeling; love is comprised of the actions that we do for one another to help one another and to honour one another.
A loving mother might not be feeling all gooey and gushy with love at three in the morning when she is feeding and changing her baby - in fact, she probably feels tired and annoyed - but in the actions of feeding and changing her baby, she is loving her baby, because love is the action; not the feeling.
Likewise, a neglectful mother might have soft, sentimental feelings for her children, but if she sleeps through their cries of distress in the night, then she doesn’t love them, even though she has these soft feelings of sentiment for them - in her actions, she hates them, even though in her feelings, she loves them.
We are to love God in our actions; not only in our feelings. Our soft sentimental feelings for God mean nothing, if we have better things to do on Sundays than attend Mass and be with Him to honour Him, praise Him, and worship Him.
J
jmcrae
Guest
In that moment, you have failed to meet your father’s need in the way that is best suited for you to meet his need - you have failed to love him - which is to say that you have hated him.
Your emotions are saying “love” but your actions are not loving him, in that particular instance. Your father lives in time; not in eternity, and also he is not omniscient, so most likely he fails to perceive that he has been hated, or else he forgets about it - God, by contrast, lives in eternity and is omniscient, so when we hate God in our actions, He is permanently affected by it, and is fully aware of it.
Yes, in two ways - first, by means of lack of full knowledge - for example, someone has never attended a Catholic school and has never received Catechetical instruction, and is thus completely unaware of the obligation; second, by lack of freedom - it is physically impossible for him to get to Mass despite his best efforts to do so, and not due to any personal neglect.
H
holy_moly
Guest
Abigail,Holy moly, you wrote
Would you care to comment on jmcrae’s post?
It seems to me that s/he is confusing the unusual giving in to unwanted temptation with the refusal to avoid situations which could reasonably be expected to lead to sin. I think its pretty obvious that toying with situations we know are dangerous, and REFUSING to take the necessary steps to avoid sin, is presumption. But that’s not the same thing as simply being tempted and not being able to overcome the temptation.
I also believe there’s a big difference between WANTING to sin and simply not being able to overcome temptation. If there isn’t a difference, then there is no reason for the Church’s distinction between mortal and venial sin.
I would also be very interested in hearing your views on whether it is possible to sin venially in connection with our obligation to attend Mass, as I outlined in my post to LilyM.
I am NOT trying to be argumentative here.
Originally, I liked the post because of the info on the Baltimore Cathecism re: the sin of presumption, which also reminded me of a time in my past where I was guilty of it & didn’t realize it at the time…
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around, *“I think its pretty obvious that toying with situations we know are dangerous, and REFUSING to take the necessary steps to avoid sin, is presumption. But that’s not the same thing as simply being tempted and not being able to overcome the temptation.” * I guess it isn’t whether one succumbs to temptation or not, but whether there is pre meditation for using confession as a ‘get out of jail free card’; if so, it is presumption, speaking both from my reading of the Baltimore & from my personal experience.
Now for,* “I also believe there’s a big difference between WANTING to sin and simply not being able to overcome temptation. If there isn’t a difference, then there is no reason for the Church’s distinction between mortal and venial sin.” *Depends on the sin/situation, primarily whether grave matter was involved. In the original scenerio, ‘Mary’ missed Mass. Given the additional circumstances, I called it Mortal sin. Whether one wants to miss Mass, or is simply tempted to miss, w/out a valid reason, to me it is always a mortal sin.
Shalom,
Jim
A
Abigail
Guest
jmcrae, you wrote that one may sin venially in connection with their obligation to attend Mass … But I don’t understand your reasoning.
If if it physically impossible to attend Mass, one is excused. There is no obligation to attend, and no sin.
So, as I read it, neither of these are venial sins.
If one doesn’t know they have the obligation, they don’t sin at all. One cannot sin unless one knows that what they are doing is sinful.
If if it physically impossible to attend Mass, one is excused. There is no obligation to attend, and no sin.
So, as I read it, neither of these are venial sins.
A
Abigail
Guest
holy moly
I agree that using confession as a “get out of jail free card” would be sinful! If someone WANTS to sin and then thinks they can just go through a ritual and be back in good with God, I would agree that’s pretty presumptuous.
BUT, I don’t think that’s what’s happening when a devout Catholic succumbs to temptation and, at the same time, determines to go to confession as soon as possible so as not to remain outside God’s grace.
You also say
One of the earlier posters stated his belief that if someone is “depressed” that is the same as being ill, and excuses one from attending Mass. He did not offer any citations, so that can only be assumed to be his opinion. Is it a valid one? If so, how does one determine whether they are “depressed” enough? Do they need a doctor’s note? What if they can’t afford to go to the doctor to get one – does being poor mean the difference between mortal sin and possibly no sin at all?
I am NOT trying to be argumentative. Catholics have a lifelong weekly obligation to worship God, and these sorts of questions come up all the time. I’m looking for some meaningful and thoughtful discussion about underlying principles.
For those of you who think it is so easy to tell what’s sinful, please reference the number of posts with headings such as “Did I sin…” “Is it a sin to…” Is ______ a sin?"
I agree that using confession as a “get out of jail free card” would be sinful! If someone WANTS to sin and then thinks they can just go through a ritual and be back in good with God, I would agree that’s pretty presumptuous.
BUT, I don’t think that’s what’s happening when a devout Catholic succumbs to temptation and, at the same time, determines to go to confession as soon as possible so as not to remain outside God’s grace.
You also say
You write that “to me, it is always a mortal sin.” But you don’t offer any citations or references. I don’t think the Church is either so strict or so clear upon the matter. For example, what if Mary truly isn’t sure whether skipping Mass is a sin? She’s gotten conflicting information. One priest tells her it’s a sin, another tells her it’s not (yes, there are priests who believe that occasionally skipping Mass is not a mortal sin). One priest tells her that if she isn’t sure something is a sin she should confess it anyway, and the other priest tells her that if she isn’t sure something is a sin it CANNOT be a sin and that she should NOT confess it. Is it still so clear that what she has done is MORTAL sin?
One of the earlier posters stated his belief that if someone is “depressed” that is the same as being ill, and excuses one from attending Mass. He did not offer any citations, so that can only be assumed to be his opinion. Is it a valid one? If so, how does one determine whether they are “depressed” enough? Do they need a doctor’s note? What if they can’t afford to go to the doctor to get one – does being poor mean the difference between mortal sin and possibly no sin at all?
I am NOT trying to be argumentative. Catholics have a lifelong weekly obligation to worship God, and these sorts of questions come up all the time. I’m looking for some meaningful and thoughtful discussion about underlying principles.
For those of you who think it is so easy to tell what’s sinful, please reference the number of posts with headings such as “Did I sin…” “Is it a sin to…” Is ______ a sin?"
S
slyOne
Guest
How you feel really has nothing to do with the nature of the sin. A sin is a choice, not a feeling. Therefore Mary and Tom are commiting the same sin of not going to church, although Tom is probably commiting many other sins like blasphemy and apostasy at the same time.Dear bilop and LilyM,
Thanks for responding.
But, I think if you will re-read my post, you will find that the question I am exploring is whether Mary HAS the full knowledge and intent required for mortal sin.
Imagine two people. One is Mary, a devout Catholic who loves God and succumbs once to human weakness. The other is Tom, who denies the existence of God and vows never to set foot in a church or attend Mass because God doesn’t exist, and if He does exist, Tom hates him with all his heart. Is there a difference between these two decisions not to attend Mass. If so, what is it? If not, why is there no difference?
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, say one knew it was a sin, as even many non-Catholic Christians would actually consider it a sin to skip church on Sundays if they are able to go.jmcrae, you wrote that one may sin venially in connection with their obligation to attend Mass … But I don’t understand your reasoning.
If one doesn’t know they have the obligation, they don’t sin at all. One cannot sin unless one knows that what they are doing is sinful.
If if it physically impossible to attend Mass, one is excused. There is no obligation to attend, and no sin.
So, as I read it, neither of these are venial sins.
But imagine also that one, through no fault of their own, had failed to learn that it could ever be a grave/mortal sin. Even some Catholics sadly are in this very situation.
That would make skipping Church a venial sin, since the person lacked the FULL knowledge, but nonetheless it would remain a sin because they would know it was offending God when they did it - just lacked the knowledge of how deeply it offended Him.
A
Abigail
Guest
LilyM wrote:
That’s the point I have been trying to make with this post! And there are a whole lot of other situations where someone knows they should go to Mass but lacks the knowledge of how deeply it offends God or to what lengths they are required to go to attend…they may feel sick, but is it sick enough? They may have to care for a child, but could they have possibly arranged for someone else to do it for an hour? They could make it to a Mass 60 miles away - are they obligated to drive that far? Someone may not believe that their occasional missing of Mass means they “hate” God, or that it completely cuts them off from grace. Same situation if they don’t believe God is offended at all…it’s still falling short of our obligations, but it isn’t MORTAL sin.
jmcrae wrote:
I AGREE COMPLETELY!
That’s the point I have been trying to make with this post! And there are a whole lot of other situations where someone knows they should go to Mass but lacks the knowledge of how deeply it offends God or to what lengths they are required to go to attend…they may feel sick, but is it sick enough? They may have to care for a child, but could they have possibly arranged for someone else to do it for an hour? They could make it to a Mass 60 miles away - are they obligated to drive that far? Someone may not believe that their occasional missing of Mass means they “hate” God, or that it completely cuts them off from grace. Same situation if they don’t believe God is offended at all…it’s still falling short of our obligations, but it isn’t MORTAL sin.jmcrae wrote:
If it is true that we hate God by the act of sinning, then the Church has decided that there are two types of “hate.” One which separates us from God (mortal sin), and one which only damages our relationship (venial sin). What I’m trying to explore here is the difference between the two.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Applause for you! But just to be sure go see a priest.
A
Abigail
Guest
Sailor Kenshin,
Why should slyboots “be sure to see a priest”? I assume by this you mean go to confession?
If slyboots didn’t know what s/he was doing was a mortal sin, it wasn’t. One can’t sin mortally by mistake, or retroactively. The facts given by slyboots indicate the sin was venial. One can, of course confess venial sins if one chooses, but it is not necessary. So, I’m just confused by your reply.
Why should slyboots “be sure to see a priest”? I assume by this you mean go to confession?
If slyboots didn’t know what s/he was doing was a mortal sin, it wasn’t. One can’t sin mortally by mistake, or retroactively. The facts given by slyboots indicate the sin was venial. One can, of course confess venial sins if one chooses, but it is not necessary. So, I’m just confused by your reply.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Why would one not WANT to confess venial sin? And why would someone NOT want to set his mind at ease?Sailor Kenshin,
Why should slyboots “be sure to see a priest”? I assume by this you mean go to confession?
If slyboots didn’t know what s/he was doing was a mortal sin, it wasn’t. One can’t sin mortally by mistake, or retroactively. The facts given by slyboots indicate the sin was venial. One can, of course confess venial sins if one chooses, but it is not necessary. So, I’m just confused by your reply.
A
acuddymar
Guest
Re: missing Mass-I have a different situation. I live on an island and from Oct. to June we must go to the mainland. I am also low income. Between the ferry ticket and gas, it costs me more than $15 just for transportation. Needless to say, I only put $1 in the collection. The usual definition of allowable absence is when it poses a "hardship."I go every week anyway, but it’s hard, financially.I say the Rosary daily with the TV. The rest of the Catholic islanders go to an Anglican communion service on the island which I find upsetting, but it’s their culpability. Would my financial situation allow me to miss Mass maybe once a month because of the money difficulty? I would tend to watch it on TV at those times as I often do during the week. I would rather have a loaded gun to my head than take part in the phony Anglican communion no matter how similar it is on the surface. They have no valid priests or bishops. I have an old history of scrupulosity. What is a sound decision in this case?
Acuddymar
Acuddymar
- Status