The Graver Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Craisin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Craisin

Guest
This question specifically regards the seriousness of sin for any one person who has become a fallen away Catholic by specifically leaving the Catholic Church for a Protestant denomination (let’s just say, it is a comparatively conservative Protestant denomination in Anglicanism, Luteranism, Evangelicalism, Methodist, etc.)

With that in mind, which would you say is the graver, or more serious, sin?
  1. To be a Catholic, but to be a nominal Catholic by apathetically receiving the Eucharist, not going to Mass every Sunday, being lazy with one’s relationship with Christ and inactive in one’s faith,
or,
  1. To be a practicing conservative Protestant by being active in one’s faith by going to a church service every Sunday, active in prayer, have a sincere love for God, and have a incomplete or incorrect understanding of what the Catholic Church really is or teaches?
 
Generally I’d say #1 would tend to carry more serious sins than #2. It would, of course, entirely depend on the specifics of the person involved and their level of invincible ignorance. This assumes #2 is living more like a Catholic than #1, despite being separated from the sacraments.
 
Is there any official teaching on this issue, or something that would tie in? From what I’ve read, it seems like they would be considered heretics, but because they were ignorant (despite receiving confirmation), could they really be considered such?
 
I’ve always wondered about this kind of question. Does it matter which sin is worse than the other if they are both grave? They both merit hell. Does it really matter if one is worse than the other?
 
expectthebest said:
I’ve always wondered about this kind of question. Does it matter which sin is worse than the other if they are both grave? They both merit hell. Does it really matter if one is worse than the other?
Click to expand...
Anyone?
 
expectthebest said:
I’ve always wondered about this kind of question. Does it matter which sin is worse than the other if they are both grave? They both merit hell. Does it really matter if one is worse than the other?
Click to expand...
All other things being equal, no, it doesn’t matter. But that’s the thing. All other things are rarely equal.
 
chris_molter said:
All other things being equal, no, it doesn’t matter. But that’s the thing. All other things are rarely equal.
Click to expand...
I guess the question I’m asking is this; If one person eats meat on a Lenten Friday and someone else murders thirty people, they are both mortal sin and both would be damned if they did not repent or if they were not able to make it to Confession before death. It does not seem like justice for both to receive the same punishment. Namely, the complete absence of God in hell.
 
expectthebest said:
I guess the question I’m asking is this; If one person eats meat on a Lenten Friday and someone else murders thirty people, they are both mortal sin and both would be damned if they did not repent or if they were not able to make it to Confession before death. It does not seem like justice for both to receive the same punishment. Namely, the complete absence of God in hell.
Click to expand...
In order for anyone to be culpable of mortal sin (which separates us from the love of God) he has to meet three criteria:
  1. The sin must be a grave sin.
  2. The person must know that it is a grave sin.
  3. The person must have committed it willingly.
If any of these three are not present, there is no culpability of mortal sin. Venial sin, perhaps.

This is the problem with hypothetical questions like this. Each person will be judged fairly by God by what he knew and what he did with that knowledge using the grace God gave him (everyone has a measure of grace no matter who his is or what he believes).

It’s a more complex issue than you are presenting because human beings are more complex than your examples. 🙂
 
Della said:
In order for anyone to be culpable of mortal sin (which separates us from the love of God) he has to meet three criteria:
  1. The sin must be a grave sin.
  2. The person must know that it is a grave sin.
  3. The person must have committed it willingly.
If any of these three are not present, there is no culpability of mortal sin. Venial sin, perhaps.

This is the problem with hypothetical questions like this. Each person will be judged fairly by God by what he knew and what he did with that knowledge using the grace God gave him (everyone has a measure of grace no matter who his is or what he believes).

It’s a more complex issue than you are presenting because human beings are more complex than your examples. 🙂
Click to expand...
Great answer.
 
expectthebest said:
I guess the question I’m asking is this; If** one person** eats meat on a Lenten Friday and someone else murders thirty people, they are both mortal sin and both would be damned if they did not repent or if they were not able to make it to Confession before death. It does not seem like justice for both to receive the same punishment. Namely, the complete absence of God in hell.
Click to expand...
just in case one is wondering why, and thinks it unreasonable to put mortal sin on NOT fasting at prescribed times by the Church, here is the reason.
jimmyakin.org/2004/04/meat_on_lenten_.html
 
Della said:
In order for anyone to be culpable of mortal sin (which separates us from the love of God) he has to meet three criteria:
  1. The sin must be a grave sin.
  2. The person must know that it is a grave sin.
  3. The person must have committed it willingly.
If any of these three are not present, there is no culpability of mortal sin. Venial sin, perhaps.

This is the problem with hypothetical questions like this. Each person will be judged fairly by God by what he knew and what he did with that knowledge using the grace God gave him (everyone has a measure of grace no matter who his is or what he believes).

It’s a more complex issue than you are presenting because human beings are more complex than your examples. 🙂
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. So those who left the Church for a Protestant denomination, previously having a poor teaching and understanding of the Church, unknowingly did so and left, so this would ‘in many situations’ not be considered a mortal sin?
 
Della said:
In order for anyone to be culpable of mortal sin (which separates us from the love of God) he has to meet three criteria:
  1. The sin must be a grave sin.
  2. The person must know that it is a grave sin.
  3. The person must have committed it willingly.
If any of these three are not present, there is no culpability of mortal sin. Venial sin, perhaps.

This is the problem with hypothetical questions like this. Each person will be judged fairly by God by what he knew and what he did with that knowledge using the grace God gave him (everyone has a measure of grace no matter who his is or what he believes).

It’s a more complex issue than you are presenting because human beings are more complex than your examples. 🙂
Click to expand...
Della,

I think you misuderstand my question. I agree with what you said. But the question is not “what is mortal sin”. The question is… how it is just for a person who is guilty of a seemingly less evil mortal sin, such as breaking the lent fast, can have the same punishemnt as a person who is guilty of killing hundreds of people?
 
According to most theologians, or at least the ones that I have read, there are different “levels” of Hell, and different degrees of pain and punishment in it. So the punishments would not be the same.
 
sodak said:
According to most theologians, or at least the ones that I have read, there are different “levels” of Hell, and different degrees of pain and punishment in it. So the punishments would not be the same.
Click to expand...
Where does this theory originate? Or, is this a Dogmatic teaching of the Church?
 
expectthebest said:
I guess the question I’m asking is this; If one person eats meat on a Lenten Friday and someone else murders thirty people, they are both mortal sin and both would be damned if they did not repent or if they were not able to make it to Confession before death. It does not seem like justice for both to receive the same punishment. Namely, the complete absence of God in hell.
Click to expand...
You have to take into account the assent of the will and invincible ignorance in both cases. If someone eats meat on a Friday in Lent INTENTIONALLY to say “kiss my hiney” to the Church, with full knowledge, then yes, that’s damnable. But do you see that it’s not so much eating a hot dog, but telling God “I won’t do what you ask me!”?

OTOH, someone who has a mental illness and kills 30 people because the voices in his head tell him to does NOT have full assent of the will, and therefore, has lessened culpability, not only morally, but the same principle applies in our legal system as well.
 
“kiss my hiney” to the Church, with full knowledge, then yes, that’s damnable. But do you see that it’s not so much eating a hot dog, but telling God “I won’t do what you ask me!”?
Click to expand...
Is saying no to the Church exactly the same as saying no to God? This Church is not God.

I think you have misuderstood my question though. I’m not asking what mortal sin is. I’m asking why one receives the same punishment, namely hell, whether one committs a seemingly less evil, such as eating meet on Friday, as compared with someone who murders hundreds of people.
 
expectthebest said:
Is saying no to the Church exactly the same as saying no to God? This Church is not God.

I think you have misuderstood my question though. I’m not asking what mortal sin is. I’m asking why one receives the same punishment, namely hell, whether one committs a seemingly less evil, such as eating meet on Friday, as compared with someone who murders hundreds of people.
Click to expand...
No, the Church is not God. But it IS the Body of Christ and has all His authority on Earth. The keys? Binding and loosing? Whoever hears you hears me? This is why the Church can bind our consciences.

Also, what I’m saying is that the sin isn’t “eating meat” per se. It’s rejecting the authority of the Church and, ultimately, God. If you eat a hot dog, you’re not going to hell. If you eat a hot dog BECAUSE you want to show that you don’t have to be obedient with full knowledge and consent, then, yes, you are separating yourself from God through your rebelliousness.
 
chris_molter said:
No, the Church is not God. But it IS the Body of Christ and has all His authority on Earth. The keys? Binding and loosing? Whoever hears you hears me? This is why the Church can bind our consciences.

Also, what I’m saying is that the sin isn’t “eating meat” per se. It’s rejecting the authority of the Church and, ultimately, God. If you eat a hot dog, you’re not going to hell. If you eat a hot dog BECAUSE you want to show that you don’t have to be obedient with full knowledge and consent, then, yes, you are separating yourself from God through your rebelliousness.
Click to expand...
I understand. But back to the question on equal punishment for unequal sin. Even if both sins are mortal, there are different levels of evil. Therefore, should the punishment be the same?
 
expectthebest said:
I understand. But back to the question on equal punishment for unequal sin. Even if both sins are mortal, there are different levels of evil. Therefore, should the punishment be the same?
Click to expand...
Both involve rejection of God’s authority and a desire to separate yourself from Him. Therefore, both are worthy of hell.

The thing is that most people who murder likely KNOW what they’re doing is evil and do so willingly. If that’s true, then most of them would be in a state of mortal sin

OTOH, most Catholics who fail to keep the Lenten fast may know it’s wrong, but not be aware of WHY or that it entails rejection of God’s authority. If so, very few would be committing mortal sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top