Wrong views about Mortal Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ModernCatholic said:
It’s kind of funny how the English langusge works since it is a good thing (could be considered a virtue) to be scrupulous but “scrupulosity” is a very bad thing
Click to expand...
Not really when you consider that “virtue” is a Greek concept before it came into English.
What was well known to the ancient Greeks is that “virtue” is the harmonious balance between two extremes of vice. Too much or too little is viscious (vice-ious).

So the opposite of chastity is not just lust, it is also the little known or experienced (these days) sexual vice of “insensibility”.
So the opposite of “being scrupulous” (I gather you mean something like temperance) is not just scrupulosity (I gather you mean something like strictness) but also laxity.
 
Sometimes I have felt that feeling of peace, at other times I don’t think I have. But does that really matter though? I don’t think that would make any real difference to me in terms of how often I would go to Confession.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never heard scrupulous being called a virtue but if you search it up, basic defenitions pretty much just say “careful not to do wrong”. That is a very good thing since we all must make sure not to sin. But scrupulosity on the other hand refers to an excessive sickness of the spirit which only gives bad gifts.
 
ModernCatholic said:
I’ve never heard scrupulous being called a virtue …
Click to expand...
Neither have I - you were the one one who posited that by defining “scrupulous” as distinct from “scupulosity.”

In which case you gave a definition to scrupulous that is more akin to being temperate than scrupulous.

I simply went with your unusual thought flow.
 
Last edited:
I’m confused. I put in brackets “could be considered a virtue” because it could be seen as a virtue. I’ve never heard of it being called a virtue but that can help explain to someone what it is like. A virtue is seen as something which is a desirable trait to have which can be practiced and improved. To be scrupulous fits in with that defenition. This is why although I’ve never heard it been called a virtue, it can be considered to basically be one and can help people who have never heard the term before understand what it’s like.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Is it really that easy for a faithful Christian to fall out of the state of grace (and risk hell) only to pop back up after weekly confession?
Click to expand...
“Falling out of the state of grace” declines a lot when you get old and/or wise enough to have some control over your sexual urges. There has been some debate over whether masturbation is always mortal sin because it could be caused by habit rather than a willful choice, but it’s definitely grave and is something to be avoided.

Most non-sexual mortal sins aren’t the type of thing that people are just going to slip and fall in and out of .
 
catholic1seeks said:
That some sins lead one to spiritual death, the loss of grace, is clear from Scripture.

But are there unhealthy – and untrue – ways Catholics sometimes approach the teaching on mortal sin?

In my past, even now, I have been strongly influenced by a view that Christians can slip in and out of grace — even weekly. Of course, mortal sin has conditions: It must be grave matter; consent of will; and full knowledge. However, these are not always clearly explained.

If you look at how people on CAF talk about sexual sins (for example, masturbation), you will see severe concerns about going in and out of Mortal Sin and then back to the state of grace. Surely this is not how we ought to think of Mortal Sin, no? Is it really that easy for a faithful Christian to fall out of the state of grace (and risk hell) only to pop back up after weekly confession?

It seems we have to avoid two extremes: The idea of “once saved always saved,” or an extreme view of “Fundamental Option” (whereby one’s concrete acts do not affect one’s fundamental choice to follow God) on the one hand and a legalistic, do-this, automatically sin mortally on the other — to the extent we diminish God’s grace and mercy.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think it’s easy to either give up and not care, or become over-scrupulous neurotics. Three thoughts:
  1. God knows us better than we know ourselves and loves man lavishly.
  2. According to Scripture God judges by the heart, not by outward appearances as we’re generally forced to do.
  3. Mortal sin is not about a one-time slip-up, or habitual addictions due to weakness so much as a persistent turning away from God and love, doing harm to ones neighbor with full knowledge and deliberateness of consent:
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;618 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:619
 
I think this has come to the point of trying to stalk a gnat with an elephant gun 🙂
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Most non-sexual mortal sins aren’t the type of thing that people are just going to slip and fall in and out of .
Click to expand...
Its hard to see why habits of a sexual matter are different than any other habit of grave matter re “slipping in and out of grace”. It seems sound psychological insight to assume the “grace” one is slipping in and out of is unlikely sanctifying grace if force of habit is in play against an opposed will.
“Incontinence” while not a virtue isn’t quite a full vice either as in “viscious” (vice-ious) as Aquinas and Aristotle noted dealing with weakness of the will (akrasia).
 
Last edited:
All I know is that anecdotally, the two sins I see people falling in and out of all the time are sexual sins and, if the person has a tendency, substance abuse. Often they go hand in hand.

I do not see most people I know suddenly giving in to a compulsion to steal, dishonor their father and mother, etc.

But when their lust gets excited, it is very hard for some people to say no and walk away. It is similar to how someone sees cookies and can’t get past the desire to eat them, but cookies are usually not a “grave matter” sin, while many sexual sins are grave. Likewise if somebody sees an illegal drug is being used or available and just can’t say no, it’s the same thing.

I think this all relates to the “instant gratification” in our culture.
 
Last edited:
You have a point there about the lying. My former pastor always cautioned against small lies saying that they led to bigger lies and a habit of lying.
 
I would change one thing in your post: “might be a key” to “IS THE KEY.”

An interesting article in The Atlantic a couple years ago: There's No Such Thing as Free Will - The Atlantic

There are all sorts of constraints on “free” will, ranging from genetic pre-dispositions and weaknesses to parental training, to peer groups, to habitual actions and behavior. And more. So when are we truly free? After we die. Would not God present you with your sins at the Last Judgement and say “OK. Here are your sins. Do you embrace them or reject them?” Now you are free to decide.

In a criminal court, the judge takes account of extenuating circumstances. Would a merciful God do less?
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I do not see most people I know suddenly giving in to a compulsion to steal, dishonor their father and mother, etc.
Click to expand...
Strange how you do not see different people falling in and out of bouts of different non-sexual grave matters such as anger, despair, drinking then. We normally make allowances for bodily influences here (PMS, schizophrenia, addiction etc). But with sex, nope, has to be malice of the will.

The Catechism is pretty clear that masturbation in teenagers (and those with other difficulties) is often venial and sometimes could even be blameless.

The OP in the insights of his original post has knocked this one out of the park from what I can see.
 
Last edited:
Speaking as a former sexual sinner, any attitude I apply to others I also apply twice as hard to myself. And it’s not always a judgmental attitude, but it can be, depending on the circumstances. In general, I leave the determination of what is a mortal sin up to the confessor and God in an individual case, but if something is grave matter I see nothing to be gained by suggesting to someone it’s excusible. That approach did not really help me stop. Strong negative feedback did.

We’ve had this discussion before and it’s my opinion that first of all, you infer judgment where often it’s not implied, and second, your discussion of this is at a pretty high analytical level and cam be confusing to an average person. Which is another good reason to take this stuff straight to the confessional and not discuss it on forums. I will do my part by ceasing to discuss it here and now.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Speaking as a former sexual sinner, any attitude I apply to others I also apply twice as hard to myself. And it’s not always a judgmental attitude, but it can be, depending on the circumstances. In general, I leave the determination of what is a mortal sin up to the confessor and God in an individual case, but if something is grave matter I see nothing to be gained by suggesting to someone it’s excusible. That approach did not really help me stop. Strong negative feedback did.
Click to expand...
And it may well be you never lost the indwelling Spirit most of the time as well.

The point is that neither being able to stop, nor finally stopping, alone are good indicator’s of one’s relationship with God. Yet many sinners, even old ones, still think that way. Especially when its “behind them”. Yet the flawed attitude that was with them when they were “sinning” may still exist undiminished even when “conquered”.

Its not the body that must be “conquered” but the attitude of heart to God…“sin” or “no sin.”
Jesus had much to say on this re cup n plate and a pair of brothers.
I leave the determination of what is a mortal sin up to the confessor
Click to expand...
Noone has suggested otherwise.

Like they say there is nothing like the unbalance of a convert.
It is always dangerous to extrapolate one’s own idiosyncratic to the whole population.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
That it’s easy to commit certain objectively grave sins is different from so easily actually falling from grace via a formal mortal sin.

Some would argue that a persistent will to follow God, which flanks both before and after a given specific grave sin, may in fact indicate that that objectively grave sin is really venial in nature (when it comes to subjective culpability.)

In other words, it seems unhealthy to think:

Saturday: Confession

Sunday: State of grace as long as I don’t do grave sin X that I’ve been struggling with…
Click to expand...
I’m new to the thread, so I’m going in order. If all this has been covered, I apologize.

I agree with you. And yes, you can ignore the “Fundamental Option,” which seems to say once you are “saved” (however you want to phrase that), you can’t really sin. That seems to me to be a very Protestant idea. But granted the fact that you are certainly capable of sin, and grave sin, I agree that this yo-yo effect of sorrow one day, sin the next, sorrow, sin, etc. is not really possible if you are talking about grave sins. Not only is it a question of will (see my other post earlier), but it’s a question of the definition of grave sin. To me, grave sin is a willful and conscious rejection of God. I don’t personally think you could do that every other day. I’m not going to claim it’s impossible, I just think it’s unlikely for the vast majority of people.

So, as you (catholic1seeks) say, it’s more likely these are venial sins, if we need to put them into a category.

And I also think it’s not productive to spend your life worrying about them. As I’ve said on other threads (“is it a sin to …”) it seems to me that if you are honestly wondering if something is a sin, it’s certainly not a mortal sin; doubtful it’s even a venial sin.

It would be better if we had more categories than simply venial vs. mortal.
 
OK, I’ve read through the entire thread now. Surprisingly, it hasn’t veered off into all sorts of weird places. Also (a first???) virtually everyone seems to be of good will and equally good intentions. So my 2¢ worth:

It seems to me that the same action could be seen in different ways: an evil act; a morally neutral act; and a good/commendable act.

Take a few examples: killing a person, sex, and the cookie example above.
You could murder a person because you want to kill them–evil; you could kill a person by accident–morally neutral; you could kill an enemy in war and be given a medal–a good act.
Or sex: rape–evil; sex without love in marriage–permissible…neutral?; sex in marriage with passion and love towards your partner–good.
Or the cookies–eating so many cookies you get sick/fat–evil; eating a few cookies–neutral; eating cookies because you are shipwrecked and there’s no other food–good.

And of course an act that ends in evil could be done with the best of intentions: A person or organization donates a shipload of food to a starving area. Good intention. But because a shipload of free food is distributed, local farmers are forced out of business; not only does this hurt them, but it hurts their community during the next food shortage because now there’s even less food. So a well-intentioned act leads to an evil result.

I’ve always liked a book (early 80s?), “Principles for a Catholic Morality,” by Timothy O’Connell. It’s a very academic look at the various attempts to codify morality, with arguments pro and con for each method.

It seems to me that we (all of us) get into trouble when we start judging other people. Yes, there are intrinsically evil acts; but as I pointed out above, other acts depend on the circumstances; and other acts, which might be ordinarily seen as “good” (donating food), might actually have evil, unintended consequences. In other words, it’s complicated. I think we should avoid any tendency to say “You sinned.” I don’t think any of us knows. God knows. Let him decide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top