Types of sin

[Bookcat]

PS the MTF text even gives as the examples of Material sin as one not being aware that it is sinful or not doing it consciously (see page 131 OMLIC)

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes I can except Hardon’s definition to include things such as being forced to empty the register at gun point.

(The Pope Pius XII address is addressing that therepists should not encourage patients any objectively evil action --even if it would be only materially sinful on the part of the patient. A very very important point )

I do see now what your getting at when I look at the MTF text…where it refers to “involuntary” trangression done without the needed deliberation (which includes knowledge). That can be another way to frame things. (but such is not to be confused with venial sin…which of course is a at least a semi-deliberate sin) (I did not see reference to intent there…but to the voluntary or involuntary)

But I think usually material sins are things that one does simply without knowing it is sinful. Like taking the pen one thinks is your pen. But yes I see your point that volunariness can enter into things…(I just would not call it “intent” for that can send things into the wrong orbit and open up one to potential errors)

The morality text in the MTF Didache Series Our Moral Life in Christ in the edition I have access to, discusses the divisions of sin: by origin (original vs actual) [p. 122], by gravity (mortal vs venial) [123], by “intent” (material vs formal) [123], etc. It is intended for–of all creatures–high school students.

Not only does Pius XII give good advice, he is speaking about volition and our emotional life in relation to patients with emotional imbalances who may be committing objective evils but “without subjective fault” and he calls them material sin. He is not in this discussion addressing ignorance as involved in material sin.

That together with the data and arguments I presented is what leads me to conclude as of now that the division is based on intent which, of course, subsumes ignorance in cases where that is the cause.

However, your point that pastoral (if you will) concerns are important to consider regarding readers is well taken.

 

[Bookcat]

The morality text in the MTF Didache Series Our Moral Life in Christ in the edition I have access to, discusses the divisions of sin: by origin (original vs actual) [p. 122], by gravity (mortal vs venial) [123], by “intent” (material vs formal) [123], etc. It is intended for–of all creatures–high school students.

That together with the data and arguments I presented is what leads me to conclude as of now that the division is based on intent which, of course, subsumes ignorance in cases where that is the cause.

However, your point that pastoral (if you will) concerns are important to consider regarding readers is well taken.

I have the standard text “Our Moral Life in Christ” by MTF (and other works) The MTF text speaks of knowledge and the voluntary. (Pg 131 and 142) the very example given for material sin (pg 131) is “one who commits the offense is not aware that what is being done is wrong or does not commit the offense consciously”…one could bring in “intent” in a sense…and “formal sin” is of course “intentional sin” (the word voluntary brings in intent…)…so that is where such can be coming from in that schema.

Again I would use the notion of the voluntary and ignorance of the sinfulness.

As does Fr. Hardon too catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34791
that you mentioned earlier. Nice and concise.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I have the standard text “Our Moral Life in Christ” by MTF (and other works) The MTF text speaks of knowledge and the voluntary. (Pg 131 and 142) the very example given for material sin (pg 131) is “one who commits the offense is not aware that what is being done is wrong or does not commit the offense consciously”…one could bring in “intent” in a sense…and “formal sin” is of course “intentional sin” (the word voluntary brings in intent…)…so that is where such can be coming from in that schema.

Again I would use the notion of the voluntary and ignorance of the sinfulness.

As does Fr. Hardon too catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34791
that you mentioned earlier. Nice and concise.

Fair enough. I was just citing Our Moral Life in Christ which expressly says that material and formal sins are divided by “intention.” The quote from Hardon is identical to the one I provided.

Mainly, as long as one can acknowledge that sufficient deficiencies in knowledge or volition can render an objectively evil act materially sinful, I believe they are doing justice to the subject and the teaching of the church. Given that, using the word “intention” to characterize the principle by which material and formal sin are divided works fine with me (and apparently MTF), but another word may convey the idea as well.

 

[Bookcat]

Fair enough. I was just citing Our Moral Life in Christ which expressly says that material and formal sins are divided by “intention.” The quote from Hardon is identical to the one I provided.

Mainly, as long as one can acknowledge that sufficient deficiencies in knowledge or volition can render an objectively evil act materially sinful, I believe they are doing justice to the subject and the teaching of the church. Given that, using the word “intention” to characterize the principle by which material and formal sin are divided works fine with me (and apparently MTF), but another word may convey the idea as well.

Yes I noted that the Hardon quote was the one you noted prior And as I noted my Our Moral Life in Christ by MTF (the non-HS version) goes more into things as I noted…yours prob. does too…perhaps check the examples in the chapter that it uses etc.
I think you will find there that the emphasis is not on intention but on what you just noted above. I still would suggest avoiding such emphasis on intent and rather frame it as you do above.

Have a great Holiday weekend!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes I noted that the Hardon quote was the one you noted prior And as I noted my Our Moral Life in Christ by MTF (the non-HS version) goes more into things as I noted…yours prob. does too…perhaps check the examples in the chapter that it uses etc.
I think you will find there that the emphasis is not on intention but on what you just noted above. I still would suggest avoiding such emphasis on intent and rather frame it as you do above.

Have a great Holiday weekend!

Good discussion! You have a great 4th too!