When venial sin becomes mortal sin

[nahbios]

Hello all…

I was reading this article to inform myself about occasions where what would (in and of itself) be classed as venial sin becomes mortal sin. However, I found two of the six occasions difficult to understand. Can any of you help me out? Here are the two occasions followed by my queries:

[Otherwise venial sin becomes mortal] by reason of the grave scandal which would be occasioned by the commission of a light sin, e.g., if a venial sin committed by a priest were to become the occasion of a serious sin on the part of a layman.

My queries: How would one know if grave scandal would be occasioned? We may not always know of the thinking of others, so how would one know if grave scandal would be occasioned by what would otherwise be a venial sin? Any examples would help.

[Otherwise venial sin becomes mortal] by formal contempt of a law which binds under light obligation. Contempt is called formal if it is directed against authority as such; it is called material if is directed to some other element, such as a disdain for the thing forbidden because one thinks it is of little importance.

Could I have any further explanation, or at least an example of the above condition? Does it mean deliberately choosing to displease God by committing the sin? Is this what St. Teresa refers to when she says:

“…it is as though one were to say: “Lord, although this displeases Thee, I shall do it. I know that Thou seest it and I know that Thou wouldst not have me do it; but although I understand this, I would rather follow my own whim and desire than Thy will.” If we commit a sin in this way, however slight, it seems to me that our offense is not small but very, very great.”

Essentially, if someone consciously thinks along these lines and then goes on to commit a venial sin, does that make it mortal?

Sincere thanks, and may God bless you.

 

[StOwen]

“…it is as though one were to say: “Lord, although this displeases Thee, I shall do it. I know that Thou seest it and I know that Thou wouldst not have me do it; but although I understand this, I would rather follow my own whim and desire than Thy will.” If we commit a sin in this way, however slight, it seems to me that our offense is not small but very, very great.”

Essentially, if someone consciously thinks along these lines and then goes on to commit a venial sin, does that make it mortal?

Interesting question, it seems reasonable. I await an answer.

 

[nahbios]

Well, I’ve found an example of “formal contempt”…

When a venial sin is committed out of formal contempt for the law or lawgiver, or superior, as when a Catholic on an abstinence day, and quite aware of the duty of abstaining, eats ostentatiously a little flesh-meat to show the slight regard in which he holds the law.

Source

Also, the thread whence that post comes seems to back up the notion that St. Teresa’s quote concerns what would otherwise be called venial sin. So, if my reading of it is correct, deliberately committing venial sin ‘makes’ it mortal.

But is my reading correct? Help would be much appreciated!!

Plus, I’d still love to know the answer to my first questions: how would one know if grave scandal would be occasioned by what would otherwise be a venial sin.

 

[thistle]

Hello all…

I was reading this article to inform myself about occasions where what would (in and of itself) be classed as venial sin becomes mortal sin. However, I found two of the six occasions difficult to understand. Can any of you help me out? Here are the two occasions followed by my queries:

My queries: How would one know if grave scandal would be occasioned? We may not always know of the thinking of others, so how would one know if grave scandal would be occasioned by what would otherwise be a venial sin? Any examples would help.

Could I have any further explanation, or at least an example of the above condition? Does it mean deliberately choosing to displease God by committing the sin? Is this what St. Teresa refers to when she says:

“…it is as though one were to say: “Lord, although this displeases Thee, I shall do it. I know that Thou seest it and I know that Thou wouldst not have me do it; but although I understand this, I would rather follow my own whim and desire than Thy will.” If we commit a sin in this way, however slight, it seems to me that our offense is not small but very, very great.”

Essentially, if someone consciously thinks along these lines and then goes on to commit a venial sin, does that make it mortal?

Sincere thanks, and may God bless you.

The only way a sin of venial matter can become a mortal sin is if a person mistakenly thinks the sin of venial matter is a sin of grave matter and goes ahead and commits the act.
Apart from that a venial sin cannot become a mortal sin.
However, repeated frequent venial sins can lead a person down the road to the next step of committing a mortal sin.

 

[nahbios]

The only way a sin of venial matter can become a mortal sin is if a person mistakenly thinks the sin of venial matter is a sin of grave matter and goes ahead and commits the act.
Apart from that a venial sin cannot become a mortal sin.
However, repeated frequent venial sins can lead a person down the road to the next step of committing a mortal sin.

Thank you, thistle, for verifying that - what you said is pretty much what I knew prior to reading the article (plus, of course, if someone thinks or feels that something is grave matter and carries out the act anyway, that’s also a mortal sin). Thank you for verifying that - I really appreciate your help. May God bless you!

 

[nahbios]

Just bumping this…I’d like to find out how would one know if grave scandal would be occasioned by otherwise venial matter. If anyone has anything to add to my query about “formal contempt”, feel free to do so.

 

[smichhertz]

Hi nahbios,

I’ll take a crack at it!

[Otherwise venial sin becomes mortal] by reason of the grave scandal which would be occasioned by the commission of a light sin, e.g., if a venial sin committed by a priest were to become the occasion of a serious sin on the part of a layman.

You can’t “accidentally” do it. You have to KNOW that your actions will lead someone else into mortal sin. So if someone, by the word or action, KNOWINGLY aid someone to mortal sin, that in and of itself would be a mortal sin (NOTE: “near occasion of sin” means there’s a HIGH probability of the mortal sin occurring). An example would be if I buy an alcoholic a bottle of liquor. I’m knowingly aiding him in mortal sin. Even though, in ordinary circumstances, buying someone a bottle of liquor wouldn’t be a sin at all.

[Otherwise venial sin becomes mortal] by formal contempt of a law which binds under light obligation. Contempt is called formal if it is directed against authority as such; it is called material if is directed to some other element, such as a disdain for the thing forbidden because one thinks it is of little importance.

Yes, it would be doing something in direct defiance of the legitimate authority in question. Whether it’s God, the Church, a civil authority, etc. The idea behind this is that you are not just disobeying the authority but making a statement with your actions. An example might be not giving due respect to an elected official. It’s one thing to do these things out of carelessness, another to do them out of deliberate defiance. Another example that comes to mind is when Martin Luther burned the papal bull asking for his recantation. It’s one thing to burn a piece of paper, but another to defy the Church.

Essentially, if someone consciously thinks along these lines and then goes on to commit a venial sin, does that make it mortal?

Yes, because in that case they gave significant reflection, knew it was mortal, and freely and deliberately chose to do it anyway.

Hope that helps!

 

[Bookcat]

( I did not read much on this thread…but given the subject matter…which was brought up in other threads recently (to which I responed)…I want to note that those with scruples …do not scruple …but discuss with your regular confessor…)

 

[EasterJoy]

Looking over the list, I think it better to think of sins in the way you’d think of civil law. For instance, if a bunch of guys get together and rob a bank, they could be charged both with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The planning is a felony, even though no crime harming anyone or depriving them of property has been committed yet. Likewise, if one defiantly chooses an act one fully believes to be a mortal sin or defiantly decides to neglect the serious duty to investigate the morality of the act (provided the opportunity to investigate existed), then it was the defiant choice to commit a mortal sin or the defiant choice to hazard that is the mortal sin. The act itself is still venial. It is only the act of the moral decision-making, the “interior conspiracy of heart”, that was gravely sinful.

Another example given was that of a priest committing a venial sin that would reasonably lead to a scandal by which a layperson would commit a mortal sin. Again, the act was venial. The mortal sin was his decision to violate his grave responsibility to provide the example becoming a priest, with the knowledge that his permissiveness with himself could lead to grave self-permissiveness in those he leads by his example. It is the moral decision-making and grave neglect of duty that was his mortal sin, not that his venial act itself is elevated to grave sin.

Now, when one realizes that one has scruples, then it follows that one can hardly achieve that level of defiance. In your case, your duty is to release yourself from a crippling habit of self-analysis that ruins the peace God intends you to have. You actually have a duty to be open to the peace of heart that comes from accepting that God is not standing there with a bat reading to bonk you on the head when you make a mistake. Due to your knowledge of your own particular imperfections (and we all have them), you know you are most in danger of going into the opposite ditch from many of the rest of us. Even though it may give you white knuckles to be told that your vehicle doesn’t drive the same way as is typical, you are bound to drive according to what you have learned about your actual moral vehicle. When moral law says the rules apply differently to you, then you are bound to change your driving accordingly.

 

[nahbios]

smichhertz, Bookcat, and EasterJoy: thank you all for your explanations and/or advice. I very much appreciate your taking the time to share them.

 

[nahbios]

Oh, my goodness, I’d forgotten about the dangerous resources on that website in the link in my original post. I did a little research and I would just advise people not to click on that link - it links to a website which has SSPX sympathies and articles written by Marcel Lefebvre of the SSPX. I know I’m probably too late as this post is way down the page and I don’t see how I can edit my original post - I’m sorry.

In any case, the source is from a book: Antonio Royo Marin, O.P., Theology of Christian Perfection, published in 1987 by the Foundation for a Christian Civilisation (although there’s an earlier print from 1962 by Priory Press). The extract is from Part III, ch. 2, pp 184-192.

Sincere apologies once again.

 

[smichhertz]

smichhertz, Bookcat, and EasterJoy: thank you all for your explanations and/or advice. I very much appreciate your taking the time to share them.

You’re welcome! Glad I could help.