Types of sin

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m trying to work out any connections between material sin and venial sin.

Would all material sin be venial sin given that full consent is missing; whereas all venial sin is not material sin given that there could be full consent and knowledge but regarding matter that is not grave? Formal sin would accordingly include all morrtal sins and some venial sins.

Definitions:
Mortal sin vs venial sin - I go by the standard, well-known definitions.

material sin - an action that is objectively evil but the person doing it either does not know it is wrong or does not internally consent
formal sin - a freely chosen action that one knows to be wrong

 

[Bookcat]

I’m trying to work out any connections between material sin and venial sin.

Would all material sin be venial sin given that full consent is missing;

no

whereas all venial sin is not material sin given that there could be full consent and knowledge but regarding matter that is not grave?

there can be “material venial sin”…

there can be venial sin with “grave matter” but not full consent or full knowledge

there can be venial sin with full consent or partial consent…in regards to venial matter (all things being equal)

Formal sin would accordingly include all morrtal sins and some venial sins.

Formal sin would include all committed sins…venial or mortal …

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

First of all, where are we with the definitions I cite?

Would all material sin be venial sin given that full consent is missing;

no

Perhaps I could have been clearer. “Would all material sin be venial sin given that full consent and/or knowledge is missing in material sin?”

If still “no,” Why? in the light of the definitions. Do they need to be adjusted? If so, how? It certainly cannot be mortal sin.

whereas all venial sin is not material sin given that there could be full consent and knowledge but regarding matter that is not grave?

there can be “material venial sin”…

Better stated: “not all venial sin is material sin.” But, some is.
Then, how would this (material venial sin) be different from what I suggested…however poorly?

there can be venial sin with “grave matter” but not full consent or full knowledge

Right, NP.

there can be venial sin with full consent or partial consent…in regards to venial matter (all things being equal)

Agreed. Are you saying it is only a material sin if there is no consent or knowledge at all. Does material sin even exist, then?

Formal sin would accordingly include all morrtal sins and some venial sins.

Formal sin would include all committed sins…venial or mortal …

So, you seem to be saying also “all sin committed (venial and mortal) is formal sin.” Then, what is material sin? Just evil matter in the abstract, but simply uncommitted? But then you said that there can be “material venial sin.” So there is some overlap? Are they also “formal sins?” That doesn’t make sense: they need to be one or the other–formal or material.

 

[Bookcat]

Material sin is basically something is sinful (like lying)…but which the person is not culpable for (for one reason or another).

Formal sin is sin that one is culpable for.

Venial sin that is venial matter is formal if the person is culpable …

Venial sin that is grave matter but lacking in say deliberate consent though one has partial consent is formal if the person is culpable …

Venial sin that is venial matter is material if the person is not culpable …(like some involuntary-unconscious action)

Venial sin that is grave matter is material if the person is not culpable …(like some involuntary-unconscious action)

Material sin and formal sin are not terms used on a daily basis in Christian life…so it can be a bit confusing.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Material sin is basically something is sinful (like lying)…but which the person is not culpable for (for one reason or another).

Formal sin is sin that one is culpable for.

Venial sin that is venial matter is formal if the person is culpable …

Venial sin that is grave matter but lacking in say deliberate consent though one has partial consent is formal if the person is culpable …

Venial sin that is venial matter is material if the person is not culpable …(like some involuntary-unconscious action)

Venial sin that is grave matter is material if the person is not culpable …(like some involuntary-unconscious action)

Material sin and formal sin are not terms used on a daily basis in Christian life…so it can be a bit confusing.

Yeah, I think this is basically similar to what I was seeing too except, I think, for the involuntary-unconscious part.

I just consulted the Catholic Encyclopedia under “sin” and found:

(1) This distinction [between material and formal sin] is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.

(2) Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft. *

#s (1) and (2) complement each other. #(1) speaks about a true human action (not one that is involuntary-unconscious), but where knowledge that the act is sinful is missing. #(2) stresses that a sin must be a human act and a voluntary act. Adverting to consent of the will now, it indicates that an involuntary transgression of the law (but—if they are to be consistent–a human, voluntary act nonetheless) even in grave matter is a material sin.

But lack of consent in an action involving grave matter is a venial sin.

John A. Harden’s Modern Catholic Dictionary gives the same definitions.

So I think I can slightly modify my original statement to read as follows:
All material sin would be venial sin given that full consent and/or knowledge is missing in each regarding an objective moral evil.
Some venial sin is formal sin in that there can be full consent and knowledge regarding matter that is, however, not grave.
Formal sin would accordingly include all mortal sins and some venial sins.*

 

[Bookcat]

…

But lack of consent in an action involving grave matter is a venial sin.

…

So I think I can slightly modify my original statement to read as follows:
All material sin would be venial sin given that full consent and/or knowledge is missing in each regarding an objective moral evil.
Some venial sin is formal sin in that there can be full consent and knowledge regarding matter that is, however, not grave.
Formal sin would accordingly include all mortal sins and some venial sins.

All material sins would not be venial sins. Rather they are material sins. They are ‘sins’ in the sense that they are evil…but they are not sins in the sense of culpability. Venial sins in the way that we refer to them in the CCC etc are formal sins.

Also in regards to this sentence:

"But lack of consent in an action involving grave matter is a venial sin. "

Lack of consent in an action involving grave matter can be a venial sin, or no sin at all.

Material sin does not = venial sin. Material sin = material sin. (it is its own animal)

Lack of knowledge in a material sin does not = lack of knowledge in the occasion where one has grave matter and deliberate consent but not full knowledge.

Lack of knowledge in a material sin is of a different sort.

Though it is true that one speak of “venial sin” in the category of material sins…one can have a “material venial sin” where one does something that is not gravely evil but it is sinful…but without knowing it…like when one takes a pen that one thinks is ones own pen but it actually belongs to your work. And of course one can have “material mortal sin” in that the action was materially grave …but one did it not knowing it…say one thought that the car keys laying there were the ones to your brand new car…but in fact they belonged to someone else’s brand new car of the same model…so when one drove away with it…materially it was grave theft…but formally there was no sin at all…not even venial sin.

Also: One one does not need full consent to commit a venial sin…so one can have a formal venial sin of partial consent…or even partial knowledge… One can have “semi-deliberate venial sins…etc”

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Alright, this is helpful. Perhaps I should clarify.

I am not disputing the definitions of material vs formal sin and venial vs mortal sin. The two distinctions have, as the scholastics would say, different formal objects but the same material object: the material object of sin can be studied under the formal object of intent/voluntariness (material vs formal sin) or gravity (venial vs formal sin). Ergo it is clear that material sin = material sin; formal sin = formal sin, venial sin = venial sin, etc.

But, it is not as if there are four divisions of sin all on the same plane. Nor are they just a matter of greater and lesser generality, like vertebrates being a sub-category of animal. They are two separate panes or orders of inquiry. I am attempting to superimpose them (not fuse them), if you will, to see if there is any overlap.

Though it is true that one speak of “venial sin” in the category of material sins…one can have a “material venial sin” where one does something that is not gravely evil but it is sinful…but without knowing it…like when one takes a pen that one thinks is ones own pen but it actually belongs to your work. And of course one can have “material mortal sin” in that the action was materially grave …but one did it not knowing it…say one thought that the car keys laying there were the ones to your brand new car…but in fact they belonged to someone else’s brand new car of the same model…so when one drove away with it…materially it was grave theft…but formally there was no sin at all…not even venial sin.

It would seem from your definitions and examples here that material sin involves an action that is an objective moral evil but with complete ignorance of law and/or fact (the will is not directly entering into your definitions or examples). But, if as you say there is no sin at all, I don’t see how we can call something a material venial or material mortal sin at all. It is just lesser matter or grave matter, but no formal sin. A material mortal sin seems to be a contradiction in term anyway, since grave matter without knowledge by definition cannot be a mortal sin. Be that as it may, I wouldn’t fuse the two categories to make one modify the other. I am just looking for overlap.

So, if material sin is an action with complete ignorance of law and/or fact or without any internal consent of the will, then there is no overlap with venial much less mortal sin. All mortal and venial sin overlap with formal sin alone.

Also: One one does not need full consent to commit a venial sin…so one can have a formal venial sin of partial consent…or even partial knowledge… One can have “semi-deliberate venial sins…etc”

NP here.

 

[Bookcat]

It would seem from your definitions and examples here that material sin involves an action that is an objective moral evil but with complete ignorance of law and/or fact (the will is not directly entering into your definitions or examples). But, if as you say there is no sin at all, I don’t see how we can call something a material venial or material mortal sin at all. It is just lesser matter or grave matter, but no formal sin. A material mortal sin seems to be a contradiction in term anyway, since grave matter without knowledge by definition cannot be a mortal sin. Be that as it may, I wouldn’t fuse the two categories to make one modify the other. I am just looking for overlap.

.

Which is why the terms “material sin” are not used widely in common parlance for they can be confusing.

Material sin is simply a term that has been created in moral theology to denote that it is wrong to do…but the person is not culpable for it. It is still not a good thing to do …it still evil…etc but the person is not guilty for it.

I think this can be why you will not find the term “material sin” in the Catechism. It can confuse people.

You will find rather the better language of “grave matter” in terms of matter for mortal sin…or other terms denoting the objective evil involved…even if guilt is mitigated in whole or in part in a particular persons case.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Which is why the terms “material sin” are not used widely in common parlance for they can be confusing.

Material sin is simply a term that has been created in moral theology to denote that it is wrong to do…but the person is not culpable for it. It is still not a good thing to do …it still evil…etc but the person is not guilty for it.

I think this can be why you will not find the term “material sin” in the Catechism. It can confuse people.

You will find rather the better language of “grave matter” in terms of matter for mortal sin…or other terms denoting the objective evil involved…even if guilt is mitigated in whole or in part in a particular persons case.

There is truth to what you say. Still, lots of things confuse people (philosophy, neurobiology, constitutional law) and they shouldn’t be ignored. . . by anyone. Further, I wouldn’t want to throw the distinction out the window because, in essence, it is used in the division between formal and material cooperation in evil, which is a commonly used and shows up in magesterial documents including the CCC (e.g., 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.)

 

[Bookcat]

There is truth to what you say. Still, lots of things confuse people (philosophy, neurobiology, constitutional law) and they shouldn’t be ignored. . . by anyone. Further, I wouldn’t want to throw the distinction out the window because, in essence, it is used in the division between formal and material cooperation in evil, which is a commonly used and shows up in magesterial documents.

Yes of course. It is a good distinction which can be helpful (just cause it does not find its way into the CCC does not mean it is not useful).

As for material cooperation and formal cooperation --it is important to note that they do not line up exactly with this distinction of material sin and formal sin. Material cooperation can very much be sinful in a culpable way.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes of course. It is a good distinction which can be helpful (just cause it does not find its way into the CCC does not mean it is not useful).

As for material cooperation and formal cooperation --it is important to note that they do not line up exactly with this distinction of material sin and formal sin. Material cooperation can very much be sinful in a culpable way.

True, from the POV of culpability they don’t exactly line up. But the division is based on intent regarding the evil act and to that extent it is the same distinction.

A great discussion! It helped to clarify things just as I had hoped.

 

[Bookcat]

These lines from the CCC too can help esp. regarding vincible and invincible ignorance:

IV. Erroneous Judgment

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

 

[Bookcat]

This will also help:

II. Good Acts and Evil Acts

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

and

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

 

[Bookcat]

True, from the POV of culpability they don’t exactly line up. But the division is based on intent regarding the evil act and to that extent it is the same distinction.

A great discussion! It helped to clarify things just as I had hoped.

The division of material sin vs formal sin is not intent so much as knowledge…or rather ignorance. The division in terms of cooperation does involve intent at least in the sense of “formal cooperation” where one intends the evil directly…but there is much more that goes into judging things (I note this for readers).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The division of material sin vs formal sin is not intent so much as knowledge…or rather ignorance. The division in terms of cooperation does involve intent at least in the sense of “formal cooperation” where one intends the evil directly…but there is much more that goes into judging things (I note this for readers).

Yes, of course, by all means. There is direct and indirect material cooperation, proximate and remote material cooperation, active and passive, etc. All need to be weighed. I was just speaking about the fundamental distinction, material vs formal.

Regarding intent, I’m not entirely sure I agree with placing knowledge over intent in this issue . . . so far at least. 2 reasons.

First, knowledge or lack thereof in and of itself is not the issue since at that point a human act has not been performed. When a human act has been performed there is intent. Intent requires an end and that’s where knowledge or ignorance enters in. There has to be a human act, which by its nature contains intent, first. In morality we are evaluating acts, not knowledge in and of itself.

Now if you mean metaphysically that there is a priority of the true over the good as Aquinas maintains, then I agree. He teaches that considered in themselves, “The good presupposes the true.” (De Veritate, 21, 3) We are not voluntarists.

Second, #(2) in the Catholic Encyclopedia article above speaks about involuntary transgressions being material sin in the context of the involvement of both intellect and will (plus emotions). One can know right from wrong correctly and intend what is right, but, if the will is impeded by duress, do what is wrong yet sin materially. A least this is so according to the definition of material sin in Harden’s Dictionary. Intent determined the act to be a material sin here. There was no ignorance.

 

[Bookcat]

I was speaking of material sin being basically being a non-culpable sin via ignorance…like my taking of the pen thinking it was mine. Opposed to formal sin (sin in the sinful sense we normally use) of my stealing the pen knowing it is not mine.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I was speaking of material sin being basically being a non-culpable sin via ignorance…like my taking of the pen thinking it was mine. Opposed to formal sin (sin in the sinful sense we normally use) of my stealing the pen knowing it is not mine.

Understood.

I was just arguing that it is broader than the issue of mere ignorance of law or fact even when ignorance comes into play and because an impeded will can also render an objectively disordered act materially sinful. Intent covers all of it; and consequently material and formal sins are best divided by intent.

 

[Bookcat]

Material and formal sins are divided by knowledge.

“Material sin” is when one unknowingly does something that sinful…

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Material and formal sins are divided by knowledge.

“Material sin” is when one unknowingly does something that sinful…

Not according to Catholic Encyclopedia and John A. Hardon.

“Material Sin - Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therfore sinful, but a person does it either without knowledge that it is wrong, or under duress without internal consent to the evil.”
John A. Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, p. 341.

I would also offer for consideration a quote from Pius XII in an address to psychotherapsts clearly using material sin in emotional and volitional context, not ignorance:

“A final remark on the transcendent orientation of the psychic being towards God.
19. Respect for God and His holiness must always be reflected in man’s conscious acts. When, even without subjective fault on the part of the person involved, these acts are in contrast to the divine model, they still run counter to the ultimate finality of his being. That is why what is called ‘material sin’ is something which should not exist, and which constitutes in the moral order a reality which is not indifferent.
From this a conclusion follows for psychotherapy. In the presence of material sin it cannot remain neutral. It can, for the moment, tolerate what remains inevitable. But it must know that God cannot justify such an action. With still less reason can psychotherapy counsel a patient to commit material sin on the ground that it will be without subjective guilt. Such a counsel would also be erroneous if this action were regarded as necessary for the psychic easing of the patient and thus as being part of the treatment. One may never counsel a conscious action which would be a deformation, and not an image of the divine perfection.”
An Address of His Holiness to the Fifth International Congress on Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology given on April 13, 1953.]
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12PSYRE.HTM

The moral theology text by the Midwest Theological Forum says material and formal sin are divided by intent.

I have provided arguments which you have yet to address.

Merely repeating the same mantra without justification or engaging other’s arguments doesn’t foster insight. But if you are obliged to do so or you simply don’t want to pursue rational discussion on this topic further, just give the word and I’m out. No hard feelings.

 

[Bookcat]

Not according to Catholic Encyclopedia and John A. Hardon.

“Material Sin - Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therfore sinful, but a person does it either without knowledge that it is wrong, or under duress without internal consent to the evil.”
John A. Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, p. 341.

I would also offer for consideration a quote from Pius XII in an address to psychotherapsts clearly using material sin in emotional and volitional context, not ignorance:

“A final remark on the transcendent orientation of the psychic being towards God.
19. Respect for God and His holiness must always be reflected in man’s conscious acts. When, even without subjective fault on the part of the person involved, these acts are in contrast to the divine model, they still run counter to the ultimate finality of his being. That is why what is called ‘material sin’ is something which should not exist, and which constitutes in the moral order a reality which is not indifferent.
From this a conclusion follows for psychotherapy. In the presence of material sin it cannot remain neutral. It can, for the moment, tolerate what remains inevitable. But it must know that God cannot justify such an action. With still less reason can psychotherapy counsel a patient to commit material sin on the ground that it will be without subjective guilt. Such a counsel would also be erroneous if this action were regarded as necessary for the psychic easing of the patient and thus as being part of the treatment. One may never counsel a conscious action which would be a deformation, and not an image of the divine perfection.”
An Address of His Holiness to the Fifth International Congress on Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology given on April 13, 1953.]
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12PSYRE.HTM

The moral theology text by the Midwest Theological Forum says material and formal sin are divided by intent.

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)