Sin Severity Ratings

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlanFromWichita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlanFromWichita

Guest
Does anybody know how or why the Church began the practice of categorizing sins as to their severity? Is anybody else uncomfortable with telling two people, “your sin is worse than his?”

This has been a question for me for a long time, since Protestants ribbed me about it years ago. It is back on my mind for several reasons. From the Bible, I could argue either side of this. For example, when Jesus compared harboring anger toward one’s brother to killing, saying you will be subject to judgment. It would sound to me that Jesus is saying that a wrong attitude is sinful, and from the standpoint of God’s judgment what is in the heart matters as much as whether you actually act on it. At first glance this sounds heartless because, what about the victim? Upon further reflection I tentatively concluded two things: that Jesus is just as concerned about the sinner as the ostensible victim, and/or Jesus is trying to combat problems at their source.

I can understand, from a societal and legal standpoint, why a population would want to judge and punish differently based on different sins. For example, a serial murderer is more imminently dangerous to society than a typical first-time parking offender, and should be dealt with more harshly. When it comes to sin, however, why do we have a pecking order? Could this be a throwback to the days when the government and the Church were one and the same?

When it comes to sins, why do we presume that some are worse than others? Why is it OK to go to Communion with unconfessed venial sins but not mortal sins? What about certain “super-mortal” sins which can get you excommunicated and cannot be remedied by confession?

Please feel free to give personal opinions on this, in addition to Church teachings. Actually I am mostly interested in hearing personal reflections on this subject. I love this forum because I can discuss all the things that I am afraid to bring up to most priests or Catholics in my parish.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
From the Bible, I could argue either side of this.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. I forgot to give an example on the other side. There are at least two places where Jesus talked particularly harshly about certain sins. One was about the betrayer, whom Jesus said would have been better off if he had not yet been born, and another is when He said that if anybody misleads these “little ones” it would be better if a millstone were tied around his neck and he was cast into the sea.

When the Protestants ribbed me about mortal v. venial sins and the complexity with determining which is which, I had insufficient knowledge of the Bible to give them these examples.

Alan
 
1John 5:16&17- “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.”

it seems john distinguished between sins also.
 
It can be difficult to discuss sins with a Protestant, because they deny the difference between actual and sanctifying grace. They tend to stare blankly when a Catholic points out that whereas mortal sins deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, venial sins do not. Acknowledging no sacramants as the means to grace, it seems it comes to people’s souls through something like osmosis. I’m never sure how they see it as coming.

But with respect to “severity,” beyond the spiritual effect of sin with regard to sanctifying grace, there is also the temporal effect of sin. Any sin has temporal consequences, and nothing (including forgiveness) makes those consequences magically disappear. One may, for instance, forgive an embezzler, but to then, in the next sentence, make him treasurer of the fundraising committee would be a bit nuts,

Where differences appear in the response to sins, this is often a reflection of these temporal effects. To miss Mass on Sunday so one can party longer has some temporal effects, but to be a direct party to an abortion or murder have far more profound temporal effects. The response of the church reflects these temporal differences along with the spiritual ones.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
The temporal effects of sin are the results of your sins on the world around you. If you rob a bank, going to confession will get you forgiven for your sins–the temporal effect of your sin, though, isn’t mitigated by confession. Usually for bank robbers, restitution of the funds, a lengthy jail time, and an inability to ever get a job at a bank in the future are the temporal effect. If you murder someone, you can be forgiven, but the temporal effect is that person is no longer alive. If you’re a kid and lie to your parents, God will forgive you in confession, but the temporal effect might be a very sore bottom. 🙂
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I can understand, from a societal and legal standpoint, why a population would want to judge and punish differently based on different sins. For example, a serial murderer is more imminently dangerous to society than a typical first-time parking offender, and should be dealt with more harshly. When it comes to sin, however, why do we have a pecking order? Could this be a throwback to the days when the government and the Church were one and the same?
Click to expand...
Are you telling me that you do not believe a parking violation is a lesser sin that a serial murder? That is the impression I get from your example. The Apostle John tells us in Scripture that some sins are greater than others. The Church makes a distinction between mortal and venial sins based on the teachings of St. JOhn, but I have never seen her (the Church) make any distinctions beyond that. I have actually heard people complain that the Church doesn’t have an official list of which sins are mortal and which ones are not, which is a criticism exactly opposite yours.
 
40.png
Almeria:
The temporal effects of sin are the results of your sins on the world around you. …🙂
Click to expand...
Could I just add to that fine response by including the temporal effects on the sinner himself? I’m not referring to just guilt here, but the well-known phenomenon that crossing a second line is easier than was crossing the first line. Likewise for crossing the same line a second time.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
40.png
martino:
Are you telling me that you do not believe a parking violation is a lesser sin that a serial murder? That is the impression I get from your example. The Apostle John tells us in Scripture that some sins are greater than others. The Church makes a distinction between mortal and venial sins based on the teachings of St. JOhn, but I have never seen her (the Church) make any distinctions beyond that. I have actually heard people complain that the Church doesn’t have an official list of which sins are mortal and which ones are not, which is a criticism exactly opposite yours.
Click to expand...
I am saying that from a legal standpoint, I understand why the murderer is punished more severely. From the standpoint of sin and God’s displeasure, I really don’t know whether we have enough information to judge. If the external temporal effects are more severe, does that automatically make it more offensive to God? What if the murderer is mentally handicapped, and honestly believes he is on a crusade for God, or thinks he is killing unhappy people out of mercy such as in the play/movie Arsenic and Old Lace? What if the parking violator, when caught, tries to excuse himself from punishment by saying to the police officer, “you should be thanking me that I’m not a serial murderer.” I had in mind the pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18. Perhaps this is why the Church doesn’t publish a “list” of mortal sins?

I don’t know all the distinctions, if there are any, officially. I have not researched this; I was most interested in hearing personal opinions about the mortal/venial distinction. One distinction beyond venial/mortal sin some bishops are making is that they are now excommunicating politicians for some sins without the ability to remedy by confession like the rest of mortal sins, so at least according to these bishops there are varying degrees of mortal sin.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I am saying that from a legal standpoint, I understand why the murderer is punished more severely. From the standpoint of sin and God’s displeasure, I really don’t know whether we have enough information to judge. If the external temporal effects are more severe, does that automatically make it more offensive to God? What if the murderer is mentally handicapped, and honestly believes he is on a crusade for God, or thinks he is killing unhappy people out of mercy such as in the play/movie Arsenic and Old Lace? What if the parking violator, when caught, tries to excuse himself from punishment by saying to the police officer, “you should be thanking me that I’m not a serial murderer.” I had in mind the pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18. Perhaps this is why the Church doesn’t publish a “list” of mortal sins?

I don’t know all the distinctions, if there are any, officially. I have not researched this; I was most interested in hearing personal opinions about the mortal/venial distinction. One distinction beyond venial/mortal sin some bishops are making is that they are now excommunicating politicians for some sins without the ability to remedy by confession like the rest of mortal sins, so at least according to these bishops there are varying degrees of mortal sin.

Alan
Click to expand...
For a sin to be mortal the person who commits the sin must have “full knowledge” that the act is sinful and they must act with full “consent of the will”. If a mentally ill person does not have full consent of the will they would not be culpable for the sin. There is a difference between the sinfulness of an action and the culpability of the person that does the action. If an act is sinful, it is sinful in all times and places, the only question would be in the disposition of the person (did they know the act was wrong and did they intend to commit the act anyway?). This is what the Church teaches and it all makes perfect sence. So in reality the person with the traffic violation could be more culpable than a convicted murderer, but that is a rare case.

Secondly, you accuse the Church of excommunicating politicians, but I have not heard of a single case where this is true. So I would just ask that you provide and example of that for us to discuss, but I honestly don’t believe this has occured in recent times. Being inelligible to receive Communion is a far cry from being excommunicated. Any one of us that commits a mortal sin that we are not sorry for, cuts us off from Communion, the only thing special about the politician is that their sin is public and therefore requires not only a valid confession (with true contrition) but also a public recantation.
 
40.png
martino:
For a sin to be mortal the person who commits the sin must have “full knowledge” that the act is sinful and they must act with full “consent of the will”. If a mentally ill person does not have full consent of the will they would not be culpable for the sin. There is a difference between the sinfulness of an action and the culpability of the person that does the action. If an act is sinful, it is sinful in all times and places, the only question would be in the disposition of the person (did they know the act was wrong and did they intend to commit the act anyway?). This is what the Church teaches and it all makes perfect sence. So in reality the person with the traffic violation could be more culpable than a convicted murderer, but that is a rare case.
Click to expand...
Dear martino,

I think what you’re saying is pretty close to what I meant. Thank you.
40.png
martino:
Secondly, you accuse the Church of excommunicating politicians, but I have not heard of a single case where this is true. So I would just ask that you provide and example of that for us to discuss, but I honestly don’t believe this has occured in recent times. Being inelligible to receive Communion is a far cry from being excommunicated. Any one of us that commits a mortal sin that we are not sorry for, cuts us off from Communion, the only thing special about the politician is that their sin is public and therefore requires not only a valid confession (with true contrition) but also a public recantation.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between excommunication and not allowing a person to receive Holy Communion? Either one of them cuts them off from the table, doesn’t it? Does excommunication also prohibit the subject from coming on church property or carry other sanctions than not being able to receive Communion?

Whatever you call it, this month a CNS article came out entitled “Three bishops say no Communion to politicians who back legal abortion.” here is an excerpt:
WASHINGTON (CNS) – Catholic politicians or candidates who support keeping abortion legal have been barred from receiving Communion in any Catholic church in the Archdiocese of Atlanta and in the dioceses of Charleston, S.C., and Charlotte, N.C.

In a joint letter Aug. 4, Archbishop John F. Donoghue of Atlanta and Bishops Robert J. Baker of Charleston and Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte said the ban can only be lifted after the politician’s “public disavowal of former support for procured abortion” and “with the knowledge and consent of the local bishop.”
Click to expand...
Of course, not all bishops agree with this practice, for example:
The church’s long-standing practice is “not to make a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for holy Communion,” Bishop Gossman said in a July 8 statement.

“The pastoral tradition of the church places the responsibility for such a judgment on those who come forward to receive holy Communion,” he added. “For the present this will continue to be my position.”
Click to expand...
and again:
In a July editorial for KNXT, the diocesan television station, Bishop John T. Steinbock of Fresno, Calif., said: "Let us not politicize the Eucharist. We all struggle, whether we are public figures or not, to be faithful to the Lord Jesus, and must constantly examine our own consciences.

“Let us not judge the consciences of others and be so presumptuous as to say who is and who is not worthy to receive Communion,” he added.
Click to expand...
This is a hot topic. Actually I think it is worth a thread of its own.

The story from which I took these excerpts can be read at:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0404296.htm

Alan
 
I am out of town tonite, so don’t have my CCC,but there is a very good description of venial and mortal sins. mortal sins separate us from God while venial ones do not. And actually if you read about confession, you don’t need to confess venial sins. The issue of venial sins increases our proclivity to sin and sin…making it easier to commit mortal sins.

Bless you all,

Newby
 
Alan, there is a big difference between being excommunicated and not being allowed Communion. Like I said before any one of us that sins mortally cannot receive Communion until we have received sacramental confession. That is all that is going on here, the only difference is that these politicians have sinned not only mortally but publicly. They are publicly scandalizing all Christians, and deceiving them by proporting to be in good standing with the Church, which is total non sense. The Bishops have a responsibility to all the faithful, to lead them and guide them in truth. So when a Catholic politician publicly contradicts Church teaching while maintaining they are in full communion with the Church, the Bishops must also stand up and publicly defend the Church. It is not so much the Bishops denying Communion but rather the individual placing themself outside the Church and therefore inelligible for Communion.
 
couple things -

one, the verse quoted from john is usually sufficient to establish in the mind of any protestant the Biblical support for mortal vs venial sins. they might not like it, but they can’t argue that the Bible makes the distinction.

two - newby said : ‘mortal sins separate us from God while venial ones do not. And actually if you read about confession, you don’t need to confess venial sins.’

first, all sin separates us from God. mortal sin leads to death, and requires confession to a priest before receiving the eucharist. you SHOULD confess venial sins, too. you don’t HAVE to confess them to a PRIEST before receiving the eucharist, but you should confess them to God, and you can confess them during the sacrament of reconciliation, too.
 
I do not know if this has been answered, but the reason one cannot receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin is that he is completely separated from God. Someone in mortal sin has severed all unity with God and would go to Hell if he died. Someone with venial sin simply has committed an offense against God. As bad as this offense is, it does not sever unity with God. One remains in the state of Sanctifying Grace with venial sin but not with mortal sin. Those who are separated from God commit the gravest of all sins by receiving Holy Communion; they commit a sin of sacrilege against Our Lord Himself and will be punished more gravely in Hell or Purgatory (if they go to Confession) for it. The sad thing is that the Novus Ordo Mass has eliminated the absolution of venial sins that is present in the Traditional Latin Mass. At every Traditional Mass there is an absolution of venial sins at the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. Before 1962 there was another absolution immediately before Communion so that all who were not in mortal sin could receive without the stain of sin whatsoever. This is still true of the Masses said according to the 1962 Missal because of the absolution at the beginning of Mass. This is another thoughtless ommission of the New Mass. It is a shame that people are deprived of the extra graces of receiving Communion without any sin as compared to having venial sin (see Baltimore Catechism 2 for the explanation of this). God bless.
 
That’s funny, cause after mortal sinning for 15 years and receiving Communion, I went to confession. I told the priest all I had done and on top of that I had received Communion. He said not to worry, that receiving the Body of Christ is probably what called me back to the church.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Does anybody know how or why the Church began the practice of categorizing sins as to their severity?
Click to expand...
Sure. The Church began this teaching when Jesus said “ Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” Lk 12, 10. Jesus teaches some sins will not be forgiven, doesn’t that imply this one is “worse” than others? He also tells Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” Mt 16, 19. He gives a similar “binding” power to the Apostles also. This is one reason some Protestants are some interested in disproving Apostolic succession. If there is Apostolic succession, then the Church is right in Her teachings. If they can get you to question Her teachings then you must question Her authority.
Getting back to the question, there are other examples of the teachings of Jesus distinguishing severity of sin in Scripture.
 
40.png
newby:
I am out of town tonite, so don’t have my CCC,but there is a very good description of venial and mortal sins. …
Click to expand...
Good point. 👍

Obviously you have a computer and access to the Internet, or you wouldn’t be able to post your reply. The Catechism is accessible on the Internet, as are online Bibles. I would like to encourage all Catholics to quote directly from the Catechism when making responses to questions such as was raised by Alan. It is simple to cut and paste from online sources, because Catholic Answers Forums provides easy to use tools for formatting and inserting hyperlinks.

The icon that looks like a world with a chain link that appears in the “Reply to Thread” box is for inserting hyperlinks that you can name whatever you want. For example:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm ]Catechism of the Catholic Church

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/]The New American Bible

To indent the text that you have pasted into your response box, just highlight the text that you want indented in the reply box, and click the icon for indent.

For example: There is such a thing as deadly sin … there is sin that is not deadly.
1John 5:16-17
 
it’s been explained to me that the confitor at the beginning of the novus ordo mass, deals with venial sins. in other words, we are not participating in the mass under the weight of venial sin.
 
undefined

To all:

A very interesting conversation. I’ll throw in my two cents worth and see what happens.

First of all, let us go to the cross. There Jesus died. For what reason did He offer the sacrifice of His life? For the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 7:27,10:10, John 12:32) and to reconcile mankind to God (Romans 5:10).

The verses in Hebrews and the one in John contain the word ‘all’. What does ‘all’ mean if it doesn’t mean ‘everyone’? ‘All’ means ALL!

When Christ died ‘once for all’, it didn’t mean that He died ONLY for those He knew would someday recieve Him by grace through faith. He died in order to forgive the sins of ALL men…all those who existed BEFORE the cross and all those who would come into existence AFTER the cross.

Perhaps you are shocked to read that even those who did or will reject Christ are included in the ALL. Remember though, that ‘all’ means ALL.

All sins of all men are forgiven thanks to the shed blood of Christ on the cross. If you doubt this, you are in denial of what Christ accomplished (past tense) on the cross and the effectiveness of His cleansing blood (Hebrews 9:22) .

Jesus said on the cross that, " 'It’ is finished." To what was He referring? Though some will claim that He was referring to His literal, physical life; they would be incorrect. Jesus was doing His Father’s will on the cross, reconciling mankind to its righteous and holy Creator by dealing with the sin issue…ONCE FOR ALL. The ‘it’ to which He referred was the work of forgiveness and reconcilliation.

Yes, there does exist a sin which is unforgiveable. It is the same sin for which one can be said to have blaspemed the Holy Spirit(Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10). Is it murder? Adultery? Genocide? Incest? Homosexuality? No.

It is an individual’s stubborn refusal to heed the Holy Spirit’s witness of Christ and thusly to come under judgment for the only sin remaining to be judged [remember, believers will be judged soley in regards to rewards, never punishment]…unbelief in the Son of God Who came to take away the sins of the world.

There is no gradation of sin. One sin is as serious to God as any other. In God’s economy, they are the same. The mere eating of a fjorbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was punished by a multitude of dire consequences, all of which still haunt us today.

To believe that to have a ‘mortal’ sin on one’s conscience when one dies without having dealt with it in the confessional and going to hell because of it, is an absurdity. Christ DIED to forgive whatever Catholicism defines as mortal sin. Was His death effective in dealing with such a sin or not? If you say no, you are trampling underfoot Christ’s shed blood. In essence, by going to a mortal man (a priest) in a quest for forgiveness, you declare that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient for the forgiveness of your sins.

I ask you ALL…When Christ died on that cross over two thousand years ago, how many of your sins had you committed? There is only one answer. You had committed NONE OF THEM for none of you were yet in existence. ALL of your sins were yet in the future, yet on that momentous day Christ died ONCE for ALL forgiving transgressions with the shedding of His own blood. Receive His completed forgiveness and rejoice in the FINISHED work of your redemption.

Sincerely,
memberofthebody
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top