Wrong views about Mortal Sin

[LittleFlower378]

Eating cookies is not intrinsically evil but sin is evil. So it depends on intention and circumstance. All 3 have to be good 1intention 2moral object 3circumstances. If one of those is bad then the act is a sin. If the moral object(2) is evil then act is intrinsic evil so no intention(1) or circumstance(3)can make the act good.

Eating cookies is not intrinsically evil but masterbation is. If the circumstances was that the guy just lost track of how many he was eating it may have been a venial sin. If he purposely ate as many cookies as possible even to the detriment of his health it may have been a mortal sin. But masterbation is always an objective sin.

 

[KJW5551]

I guess that’s the point of disagreement then. In my mind not all sin is necessarily evil…venial sins in particular. Cursing is a venial sin, but is it evil? Brothers and sisters fighting is a venial sin, is that evil? Come on. Venial sins are often comically frivolous when you think about it. But by your definition, they are all evil.

Certainly all sins are bad and weaken our relationship with God in some way, but I’m sorry–there has to be some degree of differentiation between, say, eating cookies, and, say, murder.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@LittleFlower378 @Pup7

I think there is some talking past each other going on here, and I think you both have a point.

When it comes down to it, disregarding semantics, Catholic Church teaching is that masturbation is objectively a grave act, because it distorts the nature and purpose of our sexual faculties.

So if one were to engage in masturbation with sufficient knowledge and freedom, then that person could very well be guilty of a mortal sin.

@Pup7 You say it is hard to see how murder and rape equate to masturbation, and that may be true enough. Just because two things are regarded as grave acts does not mean they are equivalent. However, just as masturbation is inherently grave and yet personal culpability can be diminished, so is the case with murder and rape. Though that can be hard for us to see, since these acts are so heinous, the principle remains: That a grave act may not mean a mortal sin if sufficient freedom and knowledge are not present.

Of course, the very definitions of rape and murder usually assume sufficient freedom and knowledge, so this isn’t a perfect analogy.

I think where @Pup7 and others may be coming from is that it is very hard to think of masturbation, as it often happens, as being so horrible an evil as condemning oneself to hell (which is what mortal sin does). But that’s part of the question behind this entire thread: Do we have unhealthy views of mortal sin?

I think I personally have been affected by unhealthy views of mortal sin. In high school, I would severely stress myself out over sexual habits like masturbation, to the extent that I would become worn out and give up on faith altogether. I think there has to be a balance. Do most people who masturbate commit subjective, formal mortal sins? I’m not sure.

But considering the factors that lead people to commit such acts: strong natural/biological impulses, the force of habit, loneliness and psychological issues, immaturity, and so on, I think pastors usually know better.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, traditionally evil is the absence of good. In this sense, all sins are “evil.”

 

[Pup7]

@Pup7 You say it is hard to see how murder and rape equate to masturbation, and that may be true enough. Just because two things are regarded as grave acts does not mean they are equivalent. However, just as masturbation is inherently grave and yet personal culpability can be diminished, so is the case with murder and rape. Though that can be hard for us to see, since these acts are so heinous, the principle remains: That a grave act may not mean a mortal sin if sufficient freedom and knowledge are not present.

I’m aware of that.

Doesn’t mean I’ll ever, ever equate the two, though. Because I cannot.

 

[BlackFriar]

To be in the state of sanctifying grace requires cooperation with that grace which is an action to avoid the near occasion of sin…

Re the very common grave matter and intrinsic evil of masturbation in the young …

How would you recommend one avoid the sin of not removing oneself from avoiding near occasion or association with ones own genitals?

My housekeeper was an ex nun, starting as a young woman.
They were made to drape a sheet over themselves when changing for bed, supposedly to avoid this “near occasion”. Likewise they were made to sleep with arms crossed as in a coffin.

There is a lot of silly talk associated with “near occasion” that could only make some sense to those with a tendancy to scrupulosity and obsessive compulsive type issues I believe.

Its unfortunate when such persons are given positions of authority in the Church.

 

[anon65111186]

If you are in a state of grace after confession, you have all the graces you need for the next time.

Because a person sins once or many times, the consequence of that is that it will be a greater struggle to overcome the sin the next time. Even grace cannot totally negate the effects of willful sin and habit. But God’s grace is sufficient.

 

[BlackFriar]

Well, traditionally evil is the absence of good. In this sense, all sins are “evil.”

That is true.
Which is why even as late as the New testament even physical ailments (blindness, lameness) are considered caused by personal sin (eg parents) and even named “sin”.

However most adults and educated Catholics surely know that strictly speaking the only “sin” worthy of the name is strictly speaking “personal sin” that flows from freedom and understanding as the CCC so clearly states.

The CCC makes clear even Original Sin is strictly speaking not a correct title - it is not personal and therefore “sin” only by analogy.

Only moral evils are true sins.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

To be in the state of sanctifying grace requires cooperation with that grace which is an action to avoid the near occasion of sin…

Re the very common grave matter and intrinsic evil of masturbation in the young …

How would you recommend one avoid the sin of not removing oneself from avoiding near occasion or association with ones own genitals?

My housekeeper was an ex nun, starting as a young woman.
They were made to drape a sheet over themselves when changing for bed, supposedly to avoid this “near occasion”. Likewise they were made to sleep with arms crossed as in a coffin.

There is a lot of silly talk associated with “near occasion” that could only make some sense to those with a tendancy to scrupulosity and obsessive compulsive type issues I believe.

Its unfortunate when such persons are given positions of authority in the Church.

It means to avoid it if possible. Baltimore Catechism shows four occasions:

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?

A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:
1. Near occasions, through which we always fall;
2. Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
3. Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and
4. Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I don’t know what to say.

 

[BlackFriar]

So your personal answer to my particular question is…

 

[Vico]

So your personal answer to my particular question is…

How would you recommend one avoid the sin of not removing oneself from avoiding near occasion or association with ones own genitals?

If it is not possible to remove a near occasion, then the person is not in a near and voluntary occasion of sin. That state does not prevent forgiveness.

 

[Pup7]

My housekeeper was an ex nun, starting as a young woman.

They were made to drape a sheet over themselves when changing for bed, supposedly to avoid this “near occasion”. Likewise they were made to sleep with arms crossed as in a coffin.

There is a lot of silly talk associated with “near occasion” that could only make some sense to those with a tendancy to scrupulosity and obsessive compulsive type issues I believe.

Its unfortunate when such persons are given positions of authority in the Church.

That’s also an unhealthy situation. It’s where people get the idea their bodies are dirty or “bad”. The medical literature is full of those stories. It can literally drive people crazy.

 

[Athanasiy]

Debate should be interesting for many young people. Many of us live by stereotypes and assure themselves with false hopes.
Mortal sin can be like a diagnosis , as the tumour which is sometimes very hard to find, and need a good x-ray picture.
With sexual sins, intercourse for example is always sex, but- sex is not always intercourse.
For example it’s possible technicality of still being a virgin but at the same time to be in a state of mortal sin. Whether the person is technically a virgin or not is secondary to how important whether she/he is PURE or not.
There is a “physical virginity” and “moral virginity”. Rape victim is still a virgin, but a couple that is engaged in lovemaking sex (and not in direct intercourse) probably no longer a virgin couple.
There is a difference between being a virgin and being sexually immoral and committing mortal sin.
Sexuality and intimacy involve more than gymnastics — truthfulness and authenticity also play an important part.
For example, - non-penetrative sex may also be considered sexual intercourse.
Therefore, I fully agree that many young people are in a state of mortal sin, and yet they can literally be sure that they do not commit any mortal sin.

 

[Vico]

…
Therefore, I fully agree that many young people are in a state of mortal sin, and yet they can literally be sure that they do not commit any mortal sin.

Not just lustful actions but lustful thoughts are grave matter so may be mortal sin.

Baltimore Catechism

Q. 1324. In what does the sixth commandment differ from the ninth, and the seventh differ from the tenth?

A. The sixth commandment differs from the ninth in this, that the sixth refers chiefly to external acts of impurity, while the ninth refers more to sins of thought against purity. The seventh commandment refers chiefly to external acts of dishonesty, while the tenth refers more to thoughts against honesty.

 

[BlackFriar]

Therefore, I fully agree that many young people are in a state of mortal sin, and yet they can literally be sure that they do not commit any mortal sin.

I think you really mean:
“many young people engage in acts of grave matter, and yet they can literally be sure that they do not commit any mortal sin.”

Not that I agree with the certainty bit.

For example, - non-penetrative sex may also be considered sexual intercourse.

I don’t think so, sounds like mutual mast. to me.
Depwends what you call “sex”…?

 

[Vico]

are dirty or “bad”

Sin is not a matter of good or bad with regard to the body, but the will to do evil or good.

For example Jesus states, Matthew 15:

16 He said to them, “Are even you still without understanding? 17 Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile. 19 [h]For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”

 

[Pup7]

Sin is not a matter of good or bad with regard to the body, but the will to do evil or good.

That is not what I said in the least.

Change under a sheet? Sleep with your arms crossed to “prevent” yourself from sinning? What kind of message do you think that sends?

What I said was such practices lead people to believe their bodies are dirty or bad.

Not the action. Search the literature of the detrimental psychological effects of such practices.

You can teach people right and wrong without building a negative image of themselves, and if you believe that didn’t happen (or can’t happen), I challenge you to do the peer-reviewed research. It can, and it does.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Sin is not a matter of good or bad with regard to the body, but the will to do evil or good.

That is not what I said in the least.

What I said was such practices lead people to believe their bodies are dirty or bad.

Not the action. Search the literature of the detrimental psychological effects of such practices.

I must have misunderstood then, but you post was linked to mine. What practices? I posted “To be in the state of sanctifying grace requires cooperation with that grace which is an action to avoid the near occasion of sin…” if possible.

 

[BlackFriar]

The issue is mental health not sin.

Surely avoiding mental sickness is almost as important as avoiding personal sin?

Personally I find that religious persons who very regularly play the “scandal”, “heresy”, “occasions of sin”, “smoke of satan”, “near occasions of sin”, “infallible”, “perennial teaching” etc etc flags demonstrate disturbing signs of mental dishealth in the area of scruples, obsessions or compulsions - or are likely “surviors” of same.