Venial sin vs human weakness

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindNight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindNight

Guest
It is easier for me to spot the difference between venial and mortal sin, but what about the difference between venial sin and mere human weakness? In other words, what would be the minimum requirement for a person to commit a venial sin? Example(s) would be appreciated.
 
All sin is a by-product of the human weakness of original sin - the inherited susceptibility to sin. It is a product of that state of being called concupiscence. The catechism, in sections 1846-1876, covers what you are speaking of. The “versus” that you see in human behavior is the opposition of all sin and the human will to avoid it.
 
Sins of weakness are less culpable than sins of malice, but they are still sins. Might even be the *same *sins, but committed for different reasons. You see this in civil law also, e.g., manslaughter vs. murder.

But even though some sins may have little or no culpability, we should still be unwilling to commit them. In other words we should not ask, “How much can I get away with without actually sinning.”

There are, however, “imperfections” (choosing a lesser good over a greater) which may be due to weakness, but are not sins. For example, a single person who is able to become a religious and has the opportunity, but instead decides to live in the world because it’s easier (cf. Mt. 19:21).
 
I suppose the key thing that would distinguish a sin of weakness from a weakness that is not a sin would be whether there is any act of the will involved.
 
A mortal sin requires three components:
  • The sin must be of “grave matter”
  • Complete knowledge of the sinful nature of the act at the time it was committed.
  • Full and complete freewill consent to this act.
If NONE of any ONE of these three criteria are not met in ANY degree, then the act is not sinful in any way (venally or mortally). So a person who is compelled to commit an act which is normally considered sinful (gun to the head of his daughter, etc) which he would never otherwise commit is not culpable in any way for the sin, because he had NO consent whatsoever (the Church does not require heroic consent, but ordinary consent).

Venial sin is what happens when a person commits a sin which possesses all three attributes of mortal sin, but any ONE of these attributes are not complete and perfect. If our knowledge is 99% (not 100%), then the sin is not more than venial. If our consent is 99% (but not 100%) then the sin is not more than venial.

There is NO SUCH THING in Catholic theology as an act that is always mortally sinful, or always venial, or always inculpable. Because the act itself is only 1/3 of the equation (and thus can never be a majority of the culpability). People come to this Forum all the time asking, “is such-ahd-such” a mortal sin. The answer is ALWAYS the same: Maybe.

The same answer applies to venial sins. And only God knows for sure.
 
DavidFilmer said:
A mortal sin requires three components:
  • The sin must be of “grave matter”
  • Complete knowledge of the sinful nature of the act at the time it was committed.
  • Full and complete freewill consent to this act.
If NONE of any ONE of these three criteria are not met in ANY degree, then the act is not sinful in any way (venally or mortally). So a person who is compelled to commit an act which is normally considered sinful (gun to the head of his daughter, etc) which he would never otherwise commit is not culpable in any way for the sin, because he had NO consent whatsoever (the Church does not require heroic consent, but ordinary consent).

Venial sin is what happens when a person commits a sin which possesses all three attributes of mortal sin, but any ONE of these attributes are not complete and perfect. If our knowledge is 99% (not 100%), then the sin is not more than venial. If our consent is 99% (but not 100%) then the sin is not more than venial.

There is NO SUCH THING in Catholic theology as an act that is always mortally sinful, or always venial, or always inculpable. Because the act itself is only 1/3 of the equation (and thus can never be a majority of the culpability). People come to this Forum all the time asking, “is such-ahd-such” a mortal sin. The answer is ALWAYS the same: Maybe.

The same answer applies to venial sins. And only God knows for sure.
Click to expand...
thanks. what do you mean by “heroic consent” in this case though? (been offline for some long time now so couldn’t reply to your answer sooner).
 
A sin is whatever injures our relationship with God, or our ability to love as we should. A human weakness need not injure such a relationship–indeed, St. Paul found that his own weakness allowed God’s grace to be even more effective.

The difference between a mortal and venial sin, for example, is whether that relationship with God is ruptured or merely injured. Similarly, between venial sin is whether the relationship with God is injured, or not.
 
bmonk said:
A sin is whatever injures our relationship with God, or our ability to love as we should. A human weakness need not injure such a relationship–indeed, St. Paul found that his own weakness allowed God’s grace to be even more effective.

The difference between a mortal and venial sin, for example, is whether that relationship with God is ruptured or merely injured. Similarly, between venial sin is whether the relationship with God is injured, or not.
Click to expand...
perfect. great answer, makes 100% sense now 🙂 (and I’m not being sarcastic at all)
 
40.png
MindNight:
It is easier for me to spot the difference between venial and mortal sin, but what about the difference between venial sin and mere human weakness? In other words, what would be the minimum requirement for a person to commit a venial sin? Example(s) would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
For it to be a sin they have to believe it’s a sin, and if they believe it’s a sin then it is.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
For it to be a sin they have to believe it’s a sin, and if they believe it’s a sin then it is.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. All kinds of sinners believe that what they do is not a sin, but that doesn’t mean that they are not culpable for their actions. The CCC says,

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Mortal sin can be committed without believing what you are doing is a sin. Much more venial sin.
 
QNDNNDQDCE (what kind of a username is this?):
Mortal sin can be committed without believing what you are doing is a sin. Much more venial sin.
Click to expand...
No, the second CCC quote you give says pretty explicitly otherwise. The first sentence says “unintentional ignorance can remove the imputability a grave offense”.
What it says in the next paragraph, it means that no one is completely ignorant of the moral law in general. It doesn’t say everyone has full knowledge of every single issue of morality. Do you believe that all people know the moral law completely? What about people that don’t accept catholic moral principles such as pro-abortion people? Do you think every single one of them is just outright lying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top