Near Occasions of Sin

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Would willingly putting yourself in a near occasion of sin be considered a mortal sin or a venial sin or is it a sin at all?

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Off the top of my head ‘Near occasion’ means no sin has happened yet: otherwise, it would be plain old sin, and we wouldn’t need the words ‘near occasion’.

 

[T700]

Hi everyone. Would willingly putting yourself in a near occasion of sin be considered a mortal sin or a venial sin or is it a sin at all?

The is an interesting discussion of this sort of thing in the online Catholic Encyclopedia here.

My own take is that “near occasion of sin” is rather like a “near miss” of two aircraft. Frightening and not something a sensible person would willingly participate in without extraordinarily good cause.

Paul

 

[StCsDavid]

Hi everyone. Would willingly putting yourself in a near occasion of sin be considered a mortal sin or a venial sin or is it a sin at all?

Not a sin, hence the term “near occasion” versus “downright.” Regardless, it’s best avoided if at all possible, which in America, can often be difficult.

 

[Holly3278]

Oh ok. Thanks everyone!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Holly,

I disagree.

We have an affirmative obligation to avoid the proximate occasions of sin.

To willingly put oneself in the proximate occasion of sin would be sinful.

See, for instance, Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary:

**OCCASION OF SIN. **Any person, place, or thing that of its nature or because of human frailty can lead one to do wrong, thereby committing sin. If the danger is certain and probable, the occasion is proximate; if the danger is slight, the occasion becomes remote. It is voluntary if it can easily be avoided. There is no obligation to avoid a remote occasion unless there is probable danger of its becoming proximate. There is a positive obligation to avoid a voluntary proximate occasion of sin even though the occasion of evildoing is due only to human weakness.

Whether or not this would be mortally or venially sinful would depend on the other conditions for mortal sin. Assuming knowledge and consent, the remaining factor, gravity, would determine what kind of sin it was. I suppose then if the sin one is putting oneself in the proximity of is grave, then putting oneself in the proximity of it is also grave.

Thoughts?
VC

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Holly,

I disagree.

We have an affirmative obligation to avoid the proximate occasions of sin.

To willingly put oneself in the proximate occasion of sin would be sinful.

See, for instance, Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary:

**OCCASION OF SIN. **Any person, place, or thing that of its nature or because of human frailty can lead one to do wrong, thereby committing sin. If the danger is certain and probable, the occasion is proximate; if the danger is slight, the occasion becomes remote. It is voluntary if it can easily be avoided. There is no obligation to avoid a remote occasion unless there is probable danger of its becoming proximate. There is a positive obligation to avoid a voluntary proximate occasion of sin even though the occasion of evildoing is due only to human weakness.
Whether or not this would be mortally or venially sinful would depend on the other conditions for mortal sin. Assuming knowledge and consent, the remaining factor, gravity, would determine what kind of sin it was. I suppose then if the sin one is putting oneself in the proximity of is grave, then putting oneself in the proximity of it is also grave.

Thoughts?
VC

Of course we ought to avoid the near occasion of sin: that’s just common sense. But there’s still a difference between a near occasion and an actual incedent, same as there’s a difference between a near collision and a collision.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Of course we ought to avoid the near occasion of sin: that’s just common sense. But there’s still a difference between a near occasion and an actual incedent, same as there’s a difference between a near collision and a collision.

Yes there is a difference, but the difference is not that one is an actual sin and one is a near miss. Both sinning and voluntarily putting oneself in the proximate occasion of sin is sinful.

If you want to stick with your analogy, it might be better to characterize it this way – the difference between a collision while intoxicated (sinful), and driving while intoxicated (also sinful).

Thoughts?
VC

 

[StCsDavid]

It seems that St. Paul was continuously placing himself in near occasions of sin, i.e. his time spent in Corinth. It’s not as if he was cloistered. He had to meet the people where they were at. So he willingly put himself there, but I don’t know if I would call that action sinful on his part.

 

[kepha95]

Would it be possible that willfully (intentionally) putting yourself in an occasion of sin where it is probable (by your own understanding of yourself) to fail can be a sin of the heart? Another way of putting it: If I hope that I will commit the sin, for instance to experience the illicit pleasure of it, but fail to follow through, am I not guilty of at least the intention to sin?

In legal terms, conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable. Is this the same as conspiracy to commit sin?

Another example, would it be correct to say that the intention to possess another’s wife would be a sin of the heart, even if you don’t succeed?

Mathew 5:28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

John

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It seems that St. Paul was continuously placing himself in near occasions of sin, i.e. his time spent in Corinth. It’s not as if he was cloistered. He had to meet the people where they were at. So he willingly put himself there, but I don’t know if I would call that action sinful on his part.

StCsDavid,

There is a distinction between proximate and remote occasions of sin, and each may be further classified as voluntary or necessary.

Proximate occasions of sin puts one in real danger of committing the sin, it makes it likely. Remote occasions of sin do not pose this danger. Voluntary occasions of sin are ones which we freely choose or seek out. Necessary occasions of sin, on the other hand, are ones which we cannot avoid due to a physical or moral necessity.

With those categories in mind, we can say that one is obligated to avoid all voluntary, proximate occasions of sin.

The distinction between proximate and remote isn’t always clear, and is based mainly on the individuals proclivity to sin in certain circumstances. What is proximate for one may be remote for another.

The question would be whether or not St. Paul voluntarily put himself into situations unnecessarily where it was very likely he would sin.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Caesar517]

Verbum Caro is exactly right.

I wish this was more well-known, but the classifications of occasion of sin don’t seem to be taught very much anymore.

 

[StCsDavid]

StCsDavid,

There is a distinction between proximate and remote occasions of sin, and each may be further classified as voluntary or necessary.

Proximate occasions of sin puts one in real danger of committing the sin, it makes it likely. Remote occasions of sin do not pose this danger. Voluntary occasions of sin are ones which we freely choose or seek out. Necessary occasions of sin, on the other hand, are ones which we cannot avoid due to a physical or moral necessity.

With those categories in mind, we can say that one is obligated to avoid all voluntary, proximate occasions of sin.

The distinction between proximate and remote isn’t always clear, and is based mainly on the individuals proclivity to sin in certain circumstances. What is proximate for one may be remote for another.

The question would be whether or not St. Paul voluntarily put himself into situations unnecessarily where it was very likely he would sin.

What do you think?
VC

Well I can go along with that. It’s very subjective, but I believe your distinction between proximate and remote is probably as best we can do. As sin is in the will, then I suppose placing oneself in a situation where that propensity for sin is likely to happen could be a form of leading oneself into temptation. In other words, one proactively facilitates the will to sin so placing oneself in a near occasion could be part of the sinful will.

 

[Holly3278]

StCsDavid,

There is a distinction between proximate and remote occasions of sin, and each may be further classified as voluntary or necessary.

Proximate occasions of sin puts one in real danger of committing the sin, it makes it likely. Remote occasions of sin do not pose this danger. Voluntary occasions of sin are ones which we freely choose or seek out. Necessary occasions of sin, on the other hand, are ones which we cannot avoid due to a physical or moral necessity.

With those categories in mind, we can say that one is obligated to avoid all voluntary, proximate occasions of sin.

The distinction between proximate and remote isn’t always clear, and is based mainly on the individuals proclivity to sin in certain circumstances. What is proximate for one may be remote for another.

The question would be whether or not St. Paul voluntarily put himself into situations unnecessarily where it was very likely he would sin.

What do you think?
VC

I agree with this but would putting oneself in a voluntary or proximate occasion of sin be considered to be a grave sin? Or does it depend on the gravity of the sin that we could be tempted to commit?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Holly,

I think that the sinfulness of the action would be determined in the same way as any action. So, assuming knowledge and consent of the will, I would suppose that placing oneself in the proximate occasion of *mortal *sin would likewise be a mortal sin, and placing oneself in the proximate occasion of venial sin would be a venial sin.

At least, I can see no reason why there wouldn’t normally be a correspondence between the gravity of the actual sin and the gravity of willfully placing oneself in the proximate occasion of it.

I welcome guidance and correction upon this supposition however.

VC

 

[Holly3278]

Holly,

I think that the sinfulness of the action would be determined in the same way as any action. So, assuming knowledge and consent of the will, I would suppose that placing oneself in the proximate occasion of *mortal *sin would likewise be a mortal sin, and placing oneself in the proximate occasion of venial sin would be a venial sin.

At least, I can see no reason why there wouldn’t normally be a correspondence between the gravity of the actual sin and the gravity of willfully placing oneself in the proximate occasion of it.

I welcome guidance and correction upon this supposition however.

VC

Oh ok. Thank you Verbum Caro. I will be asking my priest tomorrow about this question of mine. Hopefully I can get a definitive answer.