When it comes to "Non-material" sins. Are most venial?

[Angel7]

Ofcourse some sins like Lustful thinking are grave matter.

I’ve also learned that when it comes to Video Games and Games of anykind, normally “mean spirited” behavior can be acceptable. But what of games where you do something wrong and with a sinful intent, does the fact that it is not real make it venial?

Same with thoughts, can thinking of doing harm be venial? Whereas actually doing harm is grave matter?

What im asking is, if something is material does that make it more grave in matter?

 

[Bookcat]

Q:When it comes to “Non-material” sins. Are most venial?

A:No I would not put it that way. There is really not some theological “statistic” to give you how many sins sins of thought are mortal and how many are venial.

Certainly I can sin mortally by deciding to murder my boss with full knowledge and complete consent. And if I later carry that into action and stab him with my sword…well that would certainly be a worse mortal sin than then if I had only decided to do so but did not carry it into action.

Such would be different then…from just some passing thought happened to me “I want to kill my boss” but I do not consent to such. But reject it. (such could be a temptation and then an act of virtue)

Speak with your confessor …ask him to guide you on these things that concern you. He can ask you questions and really help you out.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Ofcourse some sins like Lustful thinking are grave matter.

I’ve also learned that when it comes to Video Games and Games of anykind, normally “mean spirited” behavior can be acceptable. But what of games where you do something wrong and with a sinful intent, does the fact that it is not real make it venial?

Same with thoughts, can thinking of doing harm be venial? Whereas actually doing harm is grave matter?

What im asking is, if something is material does that make it more grave in matter?

Thinking is never a sin. If a think on an atomic bomb, of a machine gun, of a knife, those are just thoughts.

When I want, then it is a sin. A sin is a will to do, it is not a thought. If you want to take a machine gun to kill like the madman in Norway, then it is a sin.

But, there mus be total awareness, will and understanding, these 3 conditions.

 

[Bookcat]

Thinking is never a sin. If a think on an atomic bomb, of a machine gun, of a knife, those are just thoughts.

When I want, then it is a sin. A sin is a will to do, it is not a thought. If you want to take a machine gun to kill like the madman in Norway, then it is a sin.

.

I would not quite put it quite that way. For some thinking is indeed a sin.

Such as willingly entertaining lustful thoughts. Or thoughts how I would like to murder my boss (without any intent to do either).

Sin can take place within ones thoughts.

“sins in thought, word, deed, or omission.” (CCC)

But one should certainly not mistake temptations or just some thought that pops into ones head…without one choosing it…consenting to it…as “sinful thoughts”.

All sorts of thoughts can happen to one without there being any sin.

And there are of course even intentional thoughts about evil things that are not a sin.

Such as what was noted above… I can think of a bomb blowing up a city without there being any sin.

Such would be very different from my thinking of a bomb blowing up a city – as a terrorist.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I would not quite put it quite that way. For some thinking is indeed a sin.

Such as willingly entertaining lustful thoughts. Or thoughts how I would like to murder my boss (without any intent to do either).

Sin can take place within ones thoughts.

“sins in thought, word, deed, or omission.” (CCC)

But one should certainly not mistake temptations or just some thought that pops into ones head…without one choosing it…consenting to it…as “sinful thoughts”.

All sorts of thoughts can happen to one without there being any sin.

And there are of course even intentional thoughts about evil things that are not a sin.

Such as what was noted above… I can think of a bomb blowing up a city without there being any sin.

Such would be very different from my thinking of a bomb blowing up a city – as a terrorist.

As think one should take deep psychology into account, Freud, Adler, Jung.
They explained the mechanisms of dreams. If my boss scolds me unjustly, at night, I dream that I am going to kill him. that dream is not a sin for I was sleeping. But nightdream and daydreaming are the same thing. The thought pops up, I did not call it, and it stays here. If I kick it out, it will come back stronger, explain Freud.

I say: “let it be there, as if you were seeing a movie in the theater, a movie that you cannot control, where there are murders, where your boss is killed and so on”. Look at your thoughts with the same detachment. You know why they came, you know that that would be a good proposition to kill your boss, but you would without job, go to jail, it was good idea but with a bad timeset. So, let it be there as long as the thoughts wishes. You will be fed up of it and the thought will go away.

Now, the example you said, I do not know. Gimme your opinion. I am a terrorist and I have the most miserable bomb in my hands that could not kill a rat. But what I wanted was an atomic bomb. And if I had an atomic bomb for sure I would go Manhattan an blew myself up, going to Heaven as a martyr.

Was this a sin: 1) according to Muslim Faith; 2) according to Catholic Faith; 3 )according to God?

 

[Bookcat]

As think one should take deep psychology into account, Freud, Adler, Jung.

No think you…I will take a pass

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

No think you…I will take a pass

Are they the devil?
Freud and its sex theory, well, it could impress some.
Adler with it power theory could impress the pacifists.
But Carl Young, with its theory that man is religious :

Jung is considered the first modern psychiatrist to view the human psyche as “by nature religious” and make it the focus of exploration.

???

You may see it in a simple wikipedia (in the first lines), clicking here.

I think we should not despise Science. Carl Jung explain wonderfully how God is inside us.

 

[Bookcat]

Are they the devil?
Freud and its sex theory, well, it could impress some.
Adler with it power theory could impress the pacifists.
But Carl Young, with its theory that man is religious : ???

I think we should not despise Science. Carl Jung explain wonderfully how God is inside us.

No they are not the Devil…(though I am sure he was happy with some of the ideas of some in psychology…)

But I there is much that is problematic (at least in Freud and Jung…and I would be very cautious…but I would urge caution with all).

It is not a matter of despising the empirical sciences --we are all about “Faith and Reason” for we are disciples of he Logos…

However there is much in those early approaches to psychology that is problematic and indeed not really “empirical science”…but rather simply theories etc. Often based in a distorted understanding of the nature of Man.

One should take great care with what they might also say in terms of God and religion.

In addition there is much that is partial and fluid and simply theories (often driven by non “scientific” ideas and agendas etc) in the young field of Psychology.

I started off studying Psychology in addition to Theology (queen of the sciences)…but later (after years of study) dropped the former for more of the later and more Philosophy.

 

[chevalier]

Killing your buddy is one thing. Killing your buddy in CounterStrike certainly is not that thing. Unless you secretly want to kill your buddy, you would if nobody caught you, and you’re using CounterStrike to kill him vicariously.

Adultery etc. is a different thing because while adultery in games is as pretended as the game is, actually consenting to sexual pleasure derived from what one’s doing in a computer game is basically porn and that’s sinful precisely because of deriving that sexual satisfaction from anything else than lawful marital intercourse that is also open to life. Don’t need a computer for that. Even mentally stimulating oneself sexually, intentionally done, can go up to mortal sin. (Any sexual pleasure obtained from unreal porn is still real sexual pleasure, which is wrong to seek other than from real intercourse with one’s lawful spouse.)

Also, one could violate the 9th commandment by coveting his buddy’s World-of-Warcraft sword as opposed to the sword that hangs on the wall of his dining room. That’d be because the coveting would be for real. At least if one allowed it to go to the same level as coveting a real thing. (Some people are capable of that.) Probably the 6th in case of stealing as well.

Real anger would be as possible to have over a computer game (not pretended anger of some RPG character but some real anger that had events from the game as its foundation) as it is in a sports game in real life.

But some things may pose a challenge to your faith, in which case you should avoid them (advice I got from a dutiful Franciscan priest). Also, if something is too much for your sensitivity, you should consider dropping it for the sake of your inner peace (I’ve done that, there are games I’ve started but not finished, or skipped entirely on account of a disturbing screenshot).

You can compare games to theatre. There are people who can pretend to be Greek gods or pagan priests or whatever (and somebody had to play Judas, too). But not everybody can do that without a risk to his faith or without mental anguish. And I suppose not everybody can safely enjoy games in which he’s doing lots of immoral stuff for fun. I’d be worried about a person who needed that form of enjoyment, if not from a moral, then at least from a psychological point of view.

Additionally, games can sometimes provide the impulse to consider a certain action from a moral point of view, e.g. a political decision that you wouldn’t be taking in real life because you’re not in a position to. That can perhaps be good. But you need to remember that games are not life and annexing a country in Civilization is not the same as waging war in real life.