What does "objectively sinful" mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnneTeresa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
puzzleannie said:
not at all
don’t compare advice you were given in your own confession based on what you told the priest about your personal situation, against generalized teaching, or advice given by another priest to another person in another situation.
Click to expand...
I’m not. Same person, me, same situation, different priests.

And as to why I saw different priests, new to the faith and didn’t know any better. Also had some doubts about what my pastor said the more I learned. Took a while till I found out different priests tell you different things.

Also, now when I have to confess to a different priest (bc I can’t see the regular one) I always dread what I’m going to be told bc it’s always something different from what the last priest told me.
 
As the document that was issued in 1997 to confessors by the Church notes:

"The confessor is bound to admonish penitents regarding objectively grave transgressions of God’s law and to ensure that they truly desire absolution and God’s pardon with the resolution to re-examine and correct their behaviour."
 
AnneTeresa said:
How do you know that? What if the pastor saw something, based on his long experience with people in similar situations, that made him realize that in this case the person is not culpable because of circumstances?
Click to expand...
Judging that a persons culpability for an action is lessened or seems to be is not the same thing as telling them to go ahead and do it.

He can not tell them it is ok to do something that is objectively sinful.
 
Bookcat said:
Judging that a persons culpability for an action is lessened or seems to be is not the same thing as telling them to go ahead and do it.

He can not tell them it is ok to do something that is objectively sinful.
Click to expand...
One priest told me, “I cannot tell you what to do, you have to look inside yourself” but my “pastoral advice is…” this and so my question is, is that ok to do then?
 
AnneTeresa said:
One priest told me, “I cannot tell you what to do, you have to look inside yourself” but my “pastoral advice is…” this and so my question is, is that ok to do then?
Click to expand...
If a priest is giving that advice about an objectively sinful action…saying in effect:

“I cannot tell you what to do in regards to murdering your boss, you have to look inside yourself” but my "pastoral advice is…

“I cannot tell you what to do, regarding if you should commit fornication, you have to look inside yourself” but my "pastoral advice is…

“I cannot tell you what to do, regarding if you should commit adultery with your divorced co-worker…you have to look inside yourself” but my "pastoral advice is…

Such is bad advice…in more than one way.

But if it is more like:

“I cannot tell you what to do about that dog who is very sick as to if one should put it to sleep or wait longer, you have to look inside yourself” but my "pastoral advice is…

that can be a different thing.

One must always look to the objective truths as taught by the Church etc
 
Bookcat said:
As the document that was issued in 1997 to confessors by the Church notes:

"The confessor is bound to admonish penitents regarding objectively grave transgressions of God’s law and to ensure that they truly desire absolution and God’s pardon with the resolution to re-examine and correct their behaviour."
Click to expand...
 
Well I think priests that are more “moral theologians” see things as more gray than black/white. In fact, one priest said to me that “everything is gray” when I was talking to him trying to get clarity.

So they hesitate to tell people what to do and instead encourage people to figure it out for themselves.

Then there are those people who see everything as black and white and who simply look up a rule in the book and apply it. I don’t know, isn’t life more complicated than a black and white rule book?

I don’t mean out and out fornication or murder or other things in the ten commandments, but some things just aren’t that clear. And the reason why it’s important is that if you commit mortal sin you will go to hell.

But if you have so many doubts, is it really mortal sin? And where is God’s mercy anyway? If you are struggling this much, you need to rely on his mercy and trust in Him to help you. But the emphasis on rules makes doing that impossible. It starts to feel like it’s all about rule following and not loving God and accepting his mercy.
 
AnneTeresa said:
Well I think priests that are more “moral theologians” see things as more gray than black/white. In fact, one priest said to me that “everything is gray” when I was talking to him trying to get clarity.

Moral theologians…actually well tell it as it is. Black is black and white is white…and red is red. And of course the Church clearly teaches many things as objectively grave etc…there are not ifs ands or buts there.

So they hesitate to tell people what to do and instead encourage people to figure it out for themselves.

Depending on what that thing they have to figure out is…such could be a very grave omission of their vocation…

Then there are those people who see everything as black and white and who simply look up a rule in the book and apply it. I don’t know, isn’t life more complicated than a black and white rule book?

Objective morality is not about “a rule book”.

I don’t mean out and out fornication or murder or other things in the ten commandments, but some things just aren’t that clear. And the reason why it’s important is that if you commit mortal sin you will go to hell.

Well there are some things yes that are not as clear…there are difficulty moral questions…new technologies etc…sure. (I and responding here as a read the post)…there are things that Orthodox moral Theologians are seeking to investigate in terms of the morality…all sorts of things come down the pike. But yes other things are very clear…like the end does not justify the means, fornication is always wrong, murder is always wrong, various forms of adultery are wrong, direct abortion is wrong, stealing is wrong etc…

But if you have so many doubts, is it really mortal sin? And where is God’s mercy anyway?

One should NEVER be doing ANYTHING that is objectively sinful. There can be no doubts there.

God’s mercy is there…when we by his grace repent and turn around…mercy is there …

If you are struggling this much, you need to rely on his mercy and trust in Him to help you.

yes of course…and avoid the near occasions of sin…etc

But the emphasis on rules makes doing that impossible. It starts to feel like it’s all about rule following and not loving God and accepting his mercy.

Nope…it is not about “rules”. It is about truth. Thinking they are “rules” is to miss what one is speaking of. (rules are for games…not the moral life)

And a focus on avoiding sin does not make doing so impossible…such can make it practically possible.

Of course the focus is more on love…of following Christ …living in the true life he gives us. As the early Christians said…there is a way of death and a way of life…and great is the difference between them! We want to remain in him in the life he gives us…true life.
Click to expand...
 
“But yes other things are very clear…like the end does not justify the means, fornication is always wrong, murder is always wrong, various forms of adultery are wrong, direct abortion is wrong, stealing is wrong etc…”

Well actually this is not true. Murder is not always wrong–for instance in war or self-defense. Stealing may not be wrong if it is to get food for a starving child… etc.

So “objective sin” really still depends upon the circumstances.
 
AnneTeresa said:
“But yes other things are very clear…like the end does not justify the means, fornication is always wrong, murder is always wrong, various forms of adultery are wrong, direct abortion is wrong, stealing is wrong etc…”

Well actually this is not true. Murder is not always wrong–for instance in war or self-defense. Stealing may not be wrong if it is to get food for a starving child… etc.

So “objective sin” really still depends upon the circumstances.
Click to expand...
I understand how such can seem that way. But such is not the case.

Murder is always wrong. Killing in a just war or in (when needed) self-defense is by definition not murder.

Stealing is always wrong. What you describe can be by definition not stealing.

The “moral object” here is not murder or stealing.

Anymore than sexual intercourse between too persons who are validly married to each other is fornication.
 
2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.19
 
They are simply not murder or theft …by definition. They are different than such.

It is not per se the circumstance that changes things…one is speaking of a different moral object (which yes involves different circumstances embedded in it…but that is not what is meant by the circumstances in the three sources of morality).

Just as sex between two persons who are validly married to each other…is going to look similar to fornication…but it is not. Marital relations are a different “moral object” than fornication.
 
As the CCC notes:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

So no matter what the intention or circumstances (but we love each other…) …are they do not make an intrinsically evil object into a good. The end does not justify the means.
 
What is the “moral object” then in each of these 3 situations–the murder, stealing, and fornication examples?
 
I read all the examples in this thread, hoping to find one that would illuminate the concept of “objectively sinful” by showing an act that is sinful, but not objectively sinful. Instead it looks like the discussion focused mostly on “objectively evil”. But I thought there was a difference between evil and sinful. The five-year-old who shoots me brings about evil, but it does not seem like a good example of “non-objectively sinful”, because for the five-year-old it was not sinful at all, since he supposedly had no idea that his actions would have such dire consequences.

So can someone give an act that is sinful (not just evil, but sinful for the actor too) but not objectively evil? That would go a long way in clearing up this issue for me.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So can someone give an act that is sinful (not just evil, but sinful for the actor too) but not objectively evil? That would go a long way in clearing up this issue for me.
Click to expand...
Giving alms out of vainglory.

The “object” of giving alms is a good (giving money to feed a poor person). The intention makes it evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top