Mortal Sin no longer

[Mayo-man]

Then the disciplinary practice was “modified” here in the US. In the US today you can either abstain from flesh meat, something other than that you regularly enjoy (such as candy) or do an act of penance, mortification or almsgiving. Now if you do not do something else in place of abstaining from flesh meat then you commit mortal sin. THIS IS STILL A DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

I assume you apply this “mortal” judgement to Catholic folk who are aware of their obligation. Still, after 60 years a Catholic, since 1976 with the same confessor/spiritual director, and weekly homilies at Mass, I have never once heard it discussed. Possibly, post-Vatican II, matters of DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE are not “in vogue” in the way they once were.
Amazing huh,…

I note that Fr. Levis [cited by [COLOR=“Blue”]fix] uses the more generous rendering “possibly mortal”, but Giovanna has it right when she comments on the tone of the thread: “This is why potential converts run away screaming”. Well said Giovanna. Hang in there.

For a Church which is loosing ground in every catagory except raw numbers, and that only becuse of Hispanic immigration, I find the words of St. Francis compelling:

*“Evangalize always, when necessay use words.” *

Of course, here we have nothing else but words, so even greater care may be in order.

JB
amazon.com/How-Not-Share-Your-Faith/dp/1888992301

 

[fix]

Is everything grave matter!? Surely going 5 miles over the speed limit is not a mortal sin…maybe, if done with full knowledge and consent, it would be a venial sin…but surely such a minor act of disobedience is not grave matter. If EVERY little act of disobedience, against man, country, Church, or God is to be considered grave matter, I will be very surprised if a single soul gets to heaven…

No, everything is not grave matter. No one has said that. What I have said is that the Church has the authority to determine if disobeying a serious obligation is grave matter.

As for speeding it may be grave matter depending on circumstances.

 

[fix]

I assume you apply this “mortal” judgement to Catholic folk who are aware of their obligation. Still, after 60 years a Catholic, since 1976 with the same confessor/spiritual director, and weekly homilies at Mass, I have never once heard it discussed. Possibly, post-Vatican II, matters of DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE are not “in vogue” in the way they once were.
Amazing huh,…

I note that Fr. Levis [cited by fix

] uses the more generous rendering “possibly mortal”, but Giovanna has it right when she comments on the tone of the thread: “This is why potential converts run away screaming”. Well said Giovanna. Hang in there.

For a Church which is loosing ground in every catagory except raw numbers, and that only becuse of Hispanic immigration, I find the words of St. Francis compelling:

*“Evangalize always, when necessay use words.” *

Of course, here we have nothing else but words, so even greater care may be in order.

JB
amazon.com/How-Not-Share-Your-Faith/dp/1888992301

I do not think there is any argument that intentionally disregarding the prohibition against meat on certain days is grave matter. The Church says it is serious. It is objectively a mortal sin to disregard Her authority in this matter.

Obviously, we cannot know how culpable each person is before God, but I think it is a disservice to all to claim any legalism about the matter.

 

[fix]

…

Am I the only person reading this thread who feels absolutely gobsmacked beyond words at the insanely unmerciful legalism?

If a loving, merciful, fatherly God is honestly that implacable, why should anyone ever bother believing in the faintest glint of hope, ever?

This is why potential converts run away screaming.

I could just as well make the case for laxism and vincible ignorance. Why should our first thought be how much can I get away with? Should we not first say how may I please the Lord? Certainly, the Church does not impose that much on us. She is being faithful to Her mission. We are the ones that need to evaluate why we think every small obligation, for our spiritual benefit, is deemed legalistic.

 

[fix]

In the confessional the priest gave 10-15 miles over the speed limit in his best judgement. In that case it is a matter of safety and not of a limit for a cop to issue a ticket. I know for a fact that state troopers here on a particular highway that is completely straight and very wide to where the speed limit is 65 MPH will not pull you over unless you exceed 80 MPH (my bro is a cop).

Ken

None of that makes it morally correct. What other laws may we self define for our benefit that contradicts what the legitimate authority authorized?

Now, if the law says you are allowed so many miles over at one’s discretion that is great. Do you know that is a fact or do you only know that some police decide to enforce selectively?

The moral question is not what is everyone else doing. The question is what is my obligation before God and to my fellow man. It is not legalism. We are not obeying simply because we bow to a law. We obey because in doing so we are being faithful to what Christ asks of us.

 

[Dorothy]

It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean.

So, if the Church in its wisdom decides that from now on that all Catholics are prohibited from eating chocolate, to knowingly eat chocolate would be a mortal sin which unrepented sends you to hell?

Please keep in mind that the directives of the Church, are for us, a matter of obedience. When one deliberately disobeys it goes far beyond what seems like doing a simple, ordinary thing (like eating meat). It is an act of disobedience.

Yes, I understand what you are saying with the above Scripture quote - but it remains that a deliberate act of disobedience to a Church directive is an act of rebellion against legitimate authority.

You may not see it that way, but for a practicing Catholic it is perfectly clear.

 

[Dorothy]

…

Am I the only person reading this thread who feels absolutely gobsmacked beyond words at the insanely unmerciful legalism?

If a loving, merciful, fatherly God is honestly that implacable, why should anyone ever bother believing in the faintest glint of hope, ever?

This is why potential converts run away screaming.

In our awareness that God is loving and merciful we should desire to mildly inconvenience ourselves in the matter of obeying a directive of the Church.

God, in His Infinite Wisdom knows who is culpable of flying in His face by disobeying, and we should leave it at that.

 

[rr1213]

I do not think there is any argument that intentionally disregarding the prohibition against meat on certain days is grave matter. The Church says it is serious. It is objectively a mortal sin to disregard Her authority in this matter.

Here’s a question for Catholics which I think goes to the heart of the matter. It seems to me that in areas where the Church has authority to speak, you can reasonably contend that to knowingly disobey the Church constitutes sin (mortal or venial I don’t know). Ok.

That being the case, Catholics are there any areas of your life where the Church lacks the authority to instruct you? I’m getting the distinct impression from this thread that the answer is “no”–that the Church if it so desires can instruct faithful Catholics about anything. Anyone want to dissuade me of that impression? If so, name something specific, that is not a civil crime, that the Church could conceivably tell you to do that would be outside of its authority.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Is everything grave matter!? Surely going 5 miles over the speed limit is not a mortal sin…maybe, if done with full knowledge and consent, it would be a venial sin…but surely such a minor act of disobedience is not grave matter. If EVERY little act of disobedience, against man, country, Church, or God is to be considered grave matter, I will be very surprised if a single soul gets to heaven…

If you went 5 miles over the speed limit on an irregular basis then the sin is only vienial. But at some point the sin goes from venial to mortal. When does it become Mortal? Could possibly be at the point where you become a habitual offender every time you get behind the wheel.

Let’s look a theft for example. A single theft of no consequence is considered venial. But at some point the sin becomes mortal based on a number of varibles such as “Value of the item” stolen, “Degree to which it affects those that comprise the body of Christ” and at some point “Number of thefts”. If I steal every day, the sin at some point stops being venial and becomes mortal.

 

[Philthy]

Yes. There are those that claim to have never sinned after becoming saved. When in fact they do sin are totally clueless about it.

“All wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly” Simply going over the speed limit does not constitute a grave sin. Intentional, wreckless endangerment might be more reasonably considered a mortal sin but that is a separate topic.

 

[fix]

Here’s a question for Catholics which I think goes to the heart of the matter. It seems to me that in areas where the Church has authority to speak, you can reasonably contend that to knowingly disobey the Church constitutes sin (mortal or venial I don’t know). Ok.

That being the case, Catholics are there any areas of your life where the Church lacks the authority to instruct you? I’m getting the distinct impression from this thread that the answer is “no”–that the Church if it so desires can instruct faithful Catholics about anything. Anyone want to dissuade me of that impression? If so, name something specific, that is not a civil crime, that the Church could conceivably tell you to do that would be outside of its authority.

New advent has this:
JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPEhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#III

 

[Philthy]

If you went 5 miles over the speed limit on an irregular basis then the sin is only vienial.

Other than speculation, do you have anything to substantiate this claim?

joeyWarren:

But at some point the sin goes from venial to mortal.

Other than speculation, do you have anything to substantiate this claim?

JoeyWarren:

When does it become Mortal? Could possibly be at the point where you become a habitual offender every time you get behind the wheel.

Again, other than pure speculation upon speculation do you have anything concrete ever issued from the Church regarding speed limits and mortal sin?

JoeyWarren:

Let’s look a theft for example.

This is an extraordinarily poor choice. “Thou shalt not steal” is one of the 10 commandments and is in an entirely separate category from speeding - like adultery is. If you don’t recognize that then IMHO you are missing some very big pieces of the puzzle and it is probably best that you not portray your opinion on speeding as “Catholic”. Dont get me wrong - I dont condone speeding.

 

[Giovanna]

Sorry, but I’m not buying. The speed-limit example is so far-flung that it boggles the mind. Joey Warren, I’m not being even slightly sarcastic or mocking when I say, in total, honest sincerity, that you might want to look into treatment for OCD, if this is truly the way your thinking rules your life. And I mean that genuinely, again, not as a cheap shot. Things like this leave me wondering if anyone here has ever heard of the concept of spirit of the law, as oppsed to letter. Do you really think that common sense, reason and moral decision-making is really such rigid stuff? Do you really presume God to be so legalistic as to…never mind. Don’t answer that. I don’t think I want to know.

I stand by my previous comment- this is the stuff that leaves potential converts running from Catholicism like there’s no tomorrow; and this is half the reason you have so many lapsed and/or “cafeteria” members among your flock. Because of the way you and your authorities approach things like reverence and righteous living- reminding many of us of the Jewish legalism of the Gospel era. And that’s just sad. I cannot accept that a merciful God wants anyone to live in a constant state of self-imposed neurosis. Sorry.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Here’s a question for Catholics which I think goes to the heart of the matter. It seems to me that in areas where the Church has authority to speak, you can reasonably contend that to knowingly disobey the Church constitutes sin (mortal or venial I don’t know). Ok.

That being the case, Catholics are there any areas of your life where the Church lacks the authority to instruct you? I’m getting the distinct impression from this thread that the answer is “no”–that the Church if it so desires can instruct faithful Catholics about anything. Anyone want to dissuade me of that impression? If so, name something specific, that is not a civil crime, that the Church could conceivably tell you to do that would be outside of its authority.

As far as I know, the Church only has the authority to instruct on faith and morals. But that is a pretty large umbrella. In our daily lives we make hundreds of decisions, large and small, that have to do with living a moral life. Also, the Church speaks authoritatively on matters of faith. For example, we are instructed that the Eucharist is the real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, Sacred Tradition is equal with Sacred Scripture, Apostolic succession, etc.

However, the Church does not have the right to instruct us on matters outside our faith. For example, it would not be the Church’s business to instruct us on our profession, unless that profession has immoral practices. Like, say, a doctor who performs abortions… perfectly legal, but in the eyes of the Church it is immoral.

 

[LilyM]

Here’s a question for Catholics which I think goes to the heart of the matter. It seems to me that in areas where the Church has authority to speak, you can reasonably contend that to knowingly disobey the Church constitutes sin (mortal or venial I don’t know). Ok.

That being the case, Catholics are there any areas of your life where the Church lacks the authority to instruct you? I’m getting the distinct impression from this thread that the answer is “no”–that the Church if it so desires can instruct faithful Catholics about anything. Anyone want to dissuade me of that impression? If so, name something specific, that is not a civil crime, that the Church could conceivably tell you to do that would be outside of its authority.

Well, Giovanna, it’s not the church per se instructing us, it’s God, the Holy Spirit specifically, instructing us through the church. At least in the negative sense of the Spirit protecting the church, as promised, and ensuring the church doesn’t teach error.

Remember Jesus said ‘all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me’, then said to the disciples ‘as the father sent me (with power and authority to bind and loose heaven) so I send you’.

So, since I don’t think there are areas of life where God can’t tell us what to do, and he does so through the Church, then I don’t have a problem with it.

Think of how much he told the Israelites to do in the OT. Very specific instructions in terms of diet, details of their worship, down to the clothes they were to wear (no mixed fibres) their hairstyles (no trimming the beard or hair on the temples). Even the very design of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant, and Aaron and his children’s vestments. God even gave a recipe for the incense to be used and the anointing oil!

And you can read what happened when two of Aaron’s sons offered incense incorrectly - God struck them dead. So there isn’t a single detail of our lives that is unworthy of God’s notice and about which he can’t or won’t instruct us.

Peter and the Apostles and their successors are the chosen method through which God’s law is taught to us.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I have to add a thought that I forgot in my previous post. Yes, some of the posts have appeared to be legalistic. However, pause for a moment and think about why the Church is here on earth. To shepherd the sheep, to instruct us on how to be the people that God wants us to be. We must learn to be obedient to God. This takes humility on our part. We must not, at any time, pretend to ourselves that we merit getting into heaven. How are we to learn humility? How are we to learn obedience? (or take your pick of other items; charity, faith, hope etc). Yes, it is true that we can read scripture, but as we know, not everyone agrees on the meaning of scripture. It falls to the Church to teach and prepare us and the Church is not going to use only scripture to do the teaching.

We believe that Christ, Himself, gave His full authority to the Church. We also believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church. Being obedient to the Church is being obedient to Christ. The “not eating meat rule” is a tool for teaching obedience and humility. It is not some power trip that some might believe it to be. It is a part of preparing our hearts, minds and souls for being obedient to God. I hope this makes sense, sometimes I am not as articulate as I’d like to be.

It’s ironic. I want to give up something on Fridays. I want to do it as a way to honor and remember Jesus’ Passion as well as be obedient to His Church. If I felt like the Church was just bossing me around or saying “you’ll go to hell if you don’t do what we say”, yes, I might do what has been suggested here and flee. But I absolutely do not feel that way. Giving up meat (or, in the US, some other sacrifice) is, in itself, not important. It is the lesson learned and the virtue gained that an essential part of becoming imitators of Christ.

 

[fix]

Sorry, but I’m not buying. The speed-limit example is so far-flung that it boggles the mind. Joey Warren, I’m not being even slightly sarcastic or mocking when I say, in total, honest sincerity, that you might want to look into treatment for OCD, if this is truly the way your thinking rules your life. And I mean that genuinely, again, not as a cheap shot. Things like this leave me wondering if anyone here has ever heard of the concept of spirit of the law, as oppsed to letter. Do you really think that common sense, reason and moral decision-making is really such rigid stuff? Do you really presume God to be so legalistic as to…never mind. Don’t answer that. I don’t think I want to know.

I stand by my previous comment- this is the stuff that leaves potential converts running from Catholicism like there’s no tomorrow; and this is half the reason you have so many lapsed and/or “cafeteria” members among your flock. Because of the way you and your authorities approach things like reverence and righteous living- reminding many of us of the Jewish legalism of the Gospel era. And that’s just sad. I cannot accept that a merciful God wants anyone to live in a constant state of self-imposed neurosis. Sorry.

With all due respect I find that mostly when folks charge the Church with legalism they simply want to do what they ought not do and not feel guilty for it.

No one worships the law. We worship Christ. We obey Him. Keeping just laws are not legalistic. If one stops at all red lights, does not rob stores and obeys traffic laws are they legalistic? The spirit of the law does not mean we are free to disregard what we want because we diasgree.

In addition, there is Peter’s injunction to the early Christians to “maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” and to “be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him” (1 Pt 2, 12-14). Therefore, Christians are not free to use divine law as a ‘higher law’ - which it is - to exempt them from observance of civil law.

The only case, which even Aquinas’ acknowledges - in which one is not bound to observe a civil law is when that law so violates the purpose of law that it ceases to be law. A law is, according to Thomas, “an ordinance of reasons, promulgated by a competent legislator, on behalf of a community capable of receiving it, to promote the common good.”…

Indeed, violating a just civil or criminal law is an immoral act. For it is observation of the civil laws which allows society to function.
dwc.org/questions/Civil_Vs_Divine_Law.shtml

My question is why are we so quick to disregard a just law simply because we do not like it? Legalisms are not a problem these days, but laxism and relativism are.

 

[rr1213]

With all due respect I find that mostly when folks charge the Church with legalism they simply want to do what they ought not do and not feel guilty for it.

No one worships the law. We worship Christ. We obey Him. Keeping just laws are not legalistic. If one stops at all red lights, does not rob stores and obeys traffic laws are they legalistic? The spirit of the law does not mean we are free to disregard what we want because we diasgree.

My question is why are we so quick to disregard a just law simply because we do not like it? Legalisms are not a problem these days, but laxism and relativism are.

No, I think we are bound to obey the civil law, assuming that the law does not contradict God’s law.

What I don’t buy is that the Pope, or the Church, can mandate something that is not mandated by scripture and, in fact, scripture states is within the realm of Christian liberty, and then teach that it is sin if you willfully disobey the mandate. Such as no meat on Fridays. Who cares whether you eat meat on Fridays or not? Is there a biblical prohibition against eating meat on Fridays? Of course not, indeed we are told by Christ himself that it is not what goes into a man which makes him unclean. Nonetheless, the Church presume to take upon itself the authority to decree something that is outside of the mandate of scripture and, then, tells you that if you knowingly and willfully disobey you commit mortal sin which, of course, sends you to hell if you are unrepentent. No wonder Martin Luther fought against this mindset.

 

[fix]

This exercise of authority is seen in Acts 15, where the Church, in its first major council, bound all Christians to the discipline of abstaining from meat that had been sacrificed to idols or that had come from strangled animals (19-29). When the Church promulgated its teaching about not abstaining from meat (Acts 15:28-29), no Christian was free to disregard the discipline without committing sin. But since Paul explained that meat in itself is not unclean and the eating of meat is not inherently sinful (Rom. 14:1-23, 1 Cor. 8:1-13, 10:23-32), a Christian who violated the apostolic teaching in Acts 15 sinned not because the eating of meat was wrong but because he disobeyed a commandment of the Church. When the Catholic Church imposes a discipline such as not eating meat on Fridays, the same principle holds.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm

 

[JoeyWarren]

Other than speculation, do you have anything to substantiate this claim?Other than speculation, do you have anything to substantiate this claim?Again, other than pure speculation upon speculation do you have anything concrete ever issued from the Church regarding speed limits and mortal sin?This is an extraordinarily poor choice. “Thou shalt not steal” is one of the 10 commandments and is in an entirely separate category from speeding - like adultery is. If you don’t recognize that then IMHO you are missing some very big pieces of the puzzle and it is probably best that you not portray your opinion on speeding as “Catholic”. Dont get me wrong - I dont condone speeding.

Let me answer all your questions with some scripture.

Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

As for the theft example. Who decides whether the committed sin is venial or mortal? That decision will always be of personal opinion. Only God knows whether it is venial or mortal. Speculation? Yes and No. Whether it is a Catholic teaching? Should I put a IMHO disclaimer on everything that is of opinion? Are the directives in the above scripture any less than the 10 commandments? Is “Do This” directivie at the Last Supper is less than the 10 commandments?

Specualation? The entire Trinity concept is based on speculation. A lot of speculation went on to even develop this doctrine. Prior to its formal declaration, the issue was opposed to in part by the argument that it was speculation.

My speculation about venial and when that venial sin becomes a Mortal sin is based on “Enlightened Common Sense”.

Speeding, Jay-walking, Rubbish burning ordinances, or any ordinance, law, bill, etc are designed with respect to the greater good and protection of humanity in most cases. Note I said most, not all.

The occasional breaking of any law or ordinance is venial. but at some point the venial becomes mortal. Only God knows that point. To say that a venial sin never becomes mortal at all regardless of conditionals then that would fall into the cafeteria mode IMHO