405. May we receive Holy Communion after committing a mortal sin if we merely make an act of perfect contrition?
We may not receive Holy Communion after committing a mortal sin if we merely make an act of perfect contrition; one who has sinned grievously must go to confession before receiving Holy Communion.
However the 1983 Code of Canon Law offers some flexibility that was not found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law on which the Baltimore Catechism is based. This is what is possible today as a pastoral solution:
The 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the same requirement to make a sacramental confession if one is in a state of mortal sin applies today with the following exception: "A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916).
The requirement for sacramental confession can be dispensed if four conditions are fulfilled:
(1) there must be a grave reason to receive Communion (for example, danger of death),
(2) it must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first,
(3) the person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition, and
(4) he must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
In a perfect contrition just as in going to Confession, one acknowledges one's sin and guilt, repents of the sin and has a firm purpose of amendment. In the case of "perfect contrition" in an unusual situation of not being able to go to confession prior to receiving, one must be resolved to go as soon as possible.
A perfect contrition also implies one is truly sorry and repentant of one's sin out of love for God first and foremost and secondly out of fear of punishment and damnation that one's choosing to commit a mortal sin implies, a decision to turn away from God and to turn to evil.
But, what about the person, such as the lesbian in Washington, DC who was prevented from receiving Holy Communion does not believe that her committed lesbian relationship is a sin; certainly in Catholic teaching it would be thusly considered a venial sin no matter her disposition or belief, but would it be considered a mortal sin for her if she didn't believe it was a mortal sin? Your answer should have documentation.
For a sin to be mortal for the one committing it, three things must be in place:
1. Serious matter
2. Knowledge that it is serious matter
3. Full consent of the will
If one doesn't believe that a sin is serious matter, even though they know that the Church teaches it is, is it a mortal sin for the person or does is remain venial?
56 comments:
I'll take a stab at an answer to your question, the answer is no, it remains a mortal sin. If the person KNOWS it is considered a sin then he is able to confess it, yet knowingly does not. So, unlike my cat who cannot tell the difference, he is consciously rejecting the Church and Her teachings. It actually makes it worse, because can't claim any form of ignorance nor inability to resist, like a mental illness or limitation.
Interestingly, this is what the Navajo use to define as insane, for how could a person resolve to do evil?
rcg
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful.
We have a duty to inform our conscience and conform it to Church teaching. In this case, the priest told the lady that what she was doing was sinful - so that pretty much takes care of that.
As to the question asked, here is what The Roman Catechism has to say:
"We should, in the next place, carefully examine whether our consciences be defiled by mortal sin, which has to be repented of, in order that it may be blotted out before Communion by the remedy of contrition and confession. The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having an opportunity of going to confession, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until he has been purified by sacramental confession."
Finally, there is no "strong need" to receive Holy Communion simply because it is the Requiem Mass of a loved one, even one's mother. We should really never rely on perfect contrition. We are imperfect as a result of the Fall. Therefore, our judgments about ourselves cannot be trusted. The circumstances necessitating receiving Holy Communion without prior Confession are limited. I can imagine a situation where there is no priest to hear Confession, but there is a Deacon to bring the Eucharist and one is dying - that might necessitate receiving Communion.
Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say:
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
To believe that one must believe something to be a mortal sin in order for it to be a mortal sin is the definition of moral relativism.
Indeed, Marc. Once again, sin and redemption and God's grace and judgement are not predicated upon our understanding, our ignorance or brilliance, or our initiative. To make them based upon any human determination is heretical because it denies the necessity of the Incarnation, the efficacy of Christ's scarifice, our need for grace,the work of the Holy Spirit, and is ultimately non-Trinitarian.
I am often confounded by the qualifier "must be serious matter", am I to judge this alone? One can argue themselves out of a lot of sins on the grounds that it's not serious, but serious to who? Is lying in the course of a business deal the same level as lying to your spouse? Is hating a ruthless business partner for the way he conducts his business the same as hating what your child has done? My commonsense approach to my Faith tells me that sin must be sin, period. Hate is hate, a lie a lie, and all are mortal, since allowing me to judge the seriousness of the sin allows me to play God. But then my commonsense fails me. For if sin must be sin, the Church must know that hardly anyone can approach for Communion unless they just confessed before Mass, yet universally it is impossible to find a confessor just before Mass unless you go to the Saturday Vigil. And if the Church believed what I conclude, surely they would have confessors available before Mass, but they don't, and haven't for decades. So is my commonsense faulty? Or do I conclude, as liberal Catholics tell me, that it's nearly impossible to be in mortal sin unless you're a murderer or adulterer, or embezzler, etc.
This conundrum hurts my head.
Good post, Templar. Not only should there be Confession before every Sunday Mass, there should be Confession during all Sunday Masses (until the distribution of Holy Communion) where there is more than one priest available and the Church space allows for it.
Liberal Catholics would have us believe mortal sin is quite rare, but our experience is correct in telling us it is certainly not. However, we must also believe as the Church has always taught that there is mortal sin and venial sin - that sin which kills and that sin which harms without killing.
Our consciences inform us and we must inform our consciences. As we progress spiritually, by the aid of grace moving further from the effects of concupiscense, we more clearly recognize our wretchedness and our understanding of that sin which kills becomes clearer. In this way, it is possible to say that spiritual progression might "change" what is mortal sin for a person - the sin hasn't changed, but only our recognition of it.
Mortal Sin requires 1) Grave Matter, 2) Sufficient Reflection, and 3) Full Consent of the Will.
There are few "matters" that are always, in every circumstance, grave. Taking the life of an innocent person, regardless of the circumstances, is always "grave matter."
Circumstances can change the gravity of some matters. Stealing is always wrong, but the gravity of stealing $100 from a millionaire is not grave matter. Stealing $100 from a person who has only $100 with which to feed his/her family is grave matter, due to the harm done by the act of stealing.
Sufficient Reflection means you cannot commit a mortal sin by accident. Even civil law recognizes that "crimes of passion" (lacking much reflection at all) are, while serious, not of the same nature as "premeditated murder."
Sufficient Reflection also means that a person must understand the consequences of his/her actions.
Full Consent of the Will means that a person under any kind of coercion cannot be held to be fully responsible for his/her actions. Coercion comes in various forms and, in all cases, can mitigate the responsibility of the person who is being coerced.
Mortal Sin is indeed possible when these three conditions are present.
Pater, excellent explanation. It seems incomplete, however. For example, people will allow circumstances to gather that place them in the opportunity to sin. People will drink in order to gain the excuse that their judgment was impaired. This might be a case of taking improper advantage the feminine nature of the Church.
rcg
Enter Pavlov again. See what I mean, Priests like MK are the institutional face of the Church and they believe/state/teach that Mortal sin is almost impossible to happen, going so far as to say that stealing $100 from a Millionaire isn't a mortal sin, but stealing the last $100 of a person is. What kind of Socialist BS is that? Sin is a matter between the sinner and our Lord, what the heck does the victim have to do with it? Did I stumble into an Obama commercial by accident?
Kavanaugh/Ignotus, did I just hear you say that stealing 100 dollars is not a grave matter as long as you steal it from a millionaire? I guess, then, that fornication is ok as long as it is with a whore.
Just what the Hell kind of Priest are you, anyway?
I'm afraid PI is a victim on his seminary training in moral theology that has its antecedents in the 1970's. YIKES!
And, Marc...what have you been drinking? And, what is this love fest you are trying to have with Ignotus/Kavanaugh? You think his is a good explanation of sin? Since I know you and respect you greatly and have learned so much from you, I will assume you have been tipping in the old Jack Daniels. LOL!
Actually, Good Father, you are correct. I am the product of my seminary training. My training, however, seems to have included what yours lacked - Thomas Aquinas. To wit:
"Summa, Question 73
Article 8. Whether sin is aggravated by reason of its causing more harm?
Objection 1. It would seem that a sin is not aggravated by reason of its causing more harm. Because the harm done is an issue consequent to the sinful act. But the issue of an act does not add to its goodness or malice, as stated above (Question 20, Article 5). Therefore a sin is not aggravated on account of its causing more harm.
Aquinas Responds:
ON THE CONTRARY, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 14): "Since vice is contrary to nature, a vice is the more grievous according as it diminishes the integrity of nature." Now the diminution of the integrity of nature is a harm. Therefore a sin is graver according as it does more harm."
Good Father, Nota Bene: "Therefore, sin is graver according as it does more harm."
The same sin - stealing $100.00 - is of grater gravity if the harm done by that sin is greater in different circumstances.
I would humbly suggest that the evil starving a man and his family is greater than depriving a millionaire of pocket change.
And Temp, sin is not merely a matter between the sinner and the Lord. Sin harms others, it "diminshes the integrity of their nature." Therefore, the harm done to the nature of others, along with the offense given to God, is part of the "wrong" of any sin.
Reference:
The Way of the Lord Jesus
by Dr. Germaine Grisez
Living A Christian Life
Chapter Four: Repentance, the Sacrament of Penance, and the Struggle Against Sin
Question D
Section 2 paragraph a
The flaw in logic of course in this position is that stealing $100 from a millionaire is not as damaging to the millionaire as stealing the same amount from a poor person who needs to feed his starving family aren't the ones who will be punished by eternal damnation in the fires of hell, the sinner if unrepentant will when he faces God for his personal judgement.
I will grant you the difference in circumstances and the harm this sin does to the one who is the victim of the man's sin and crime.
However, the man who commits the mortal sin is now in a state of mortal sin for it makes no difference the amount, but the fact that he has stolen and thus turned from God. The sinner receives his just punishment for the sin has mortally wounded his salvation and thus his immortal soul is liable to severe judgement and eternal damnation in the fires of hell. The millionaire is simply out of $100, the poor person is starving, the sinner is damned.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, You are prevaricating. A sin may be more or less grave in the eyes of human law or Church discipline, but that does not make it categorically less of a sin. The Bible trumps Aquinas and Augustine, neither of whom are infallible. So, is "Thou Shalt Not Steal.' There is a period after that Commandment in every translation I own. You are like the Baptist who tries to proof text, that is, find a Scripture verse out of context to justify some theological absurdity.
Such specious reasoning is the very thing that has fed Calvinist theologians' accusation that the Church is soft on sin. Perhaps a lesson can be taken from Calvin here: Any sin, no matter how great or small, is still a stain upon the Holiness of God. I believe this is an idea that needs to be recovered.
According to your relativistic logic:
1. Fornication is less grave if it is done with a whore.
2. Adultery is less grave if my wife has cheated on me.
3. Murder is less grave if I kill an ex-con or someone without dependents.
4. Dishonoring my parents is ok if they have neglected me.
5. Bearing false witness is ok if it is to put a bad person in jail.
6. Coveting my neighbor's goods is ok if he has too much. Coveting his wife is ok if she is really hot. Coveting his ass is ok if I
live in San Francisco.
7. Having other Gods is ok if they say they are Christian (see Mormonism)
8. Breaking the Sabbath is ok if I go to Mass every day during the week (or maybe if I miss just for the Super Bowl).
9. Taking the Lord's name in vain is ok if I am reading something Ignotus wrote...
Kavanaugh, you test my ability to continue believing Donatus was wrong. I would not want you pastoring my children, advising them, or counselling them. If I attended a Mass at your Church, I would not receive there. That attitude is bordering upon sin, so I remind you that Paul says it is a sin to tempt a brother to fall. God works through you sacramentally when you are in persona Christi. Otherwise, you are just an annoyance and a distraction to devout Catholics...
Good Father, you are twisting in the wind in your attempt to cover up your ignorance of Aquinas. The question wasn't about who will be punished for stealing $100, but whether or not the circumstances of the theft affect the gravity of the sin.
They do, as Aquinas clearly states.
In stealing from the millionaire the knave is guilty of venial sin, while in stealing from the pauper -an act that results in the death of innocents - the scoundrel is guilty of a grave offense.
The one guilty of venial sin is not damned.
The "flaw in the logic" is that you can wiggle out of being ignorant of the principles of Catholic Moral Theology.
So a thief is only a venial sinner if he steals from the rich. Let me see, how many rich people do I have in my parish?
Kavanaugh, you are quoting Grisez, not Aquinas., I just looked up question #66 in the Summa (theft and robbery) and, in his answer to every question, he categorically states that stealing is a mortal sin. Where do you find Aquinas saying that it is not?
I just checked the Catechism and can find nowhere any statement that would diminish the gravity of the sin of stealing. The Catechism states categorically that to "knowingly, willingly, deprive others of their personal goods" is a grave sin.
Now, the Bible, the Catechism and the Magisterium are better references for us than Augustine, Aquinas, or Grisez (a fine Catholic moral theologian). Philosophical discussions of moral theology are fun and interesting for those of us with theological educations who like to bend words and play with ideas. However, they are not proper venues for the flock nor are they the best sources of moral guidance for any of us (see Raskolinokov).
Pin - The passage quoted from the Summa (Q 73, Art 8, Obj 1, Response) is from the Summa, not Grisez.
Yes, any sin is a sin, but the circumstances of the sin directly affect the gravity of the sin. This is not Ignotus' teaching, but the Church's teaching. If you find that "annoying" and "distracting" that's something you have to attend to.
No, no one is suggesting that sins are "ok" in certain circumstances. Aquinas and Traditional Catholic Moral Theology do teach, officially, that "...sin is graver according as it does more harm."
Good Father - a thief who steals from the rich MAY be a venial sinner or, depending on the circumstances, he MAY be a mortal sinner. While this notion may be new to you, due to your woefully insufficient seminary training, but it is not new to the Church.
Now, let me see, mortal sin always must have three things present for it to be a mortal sin otherwise it is venial:
1) Grave Matter
2) Sufficient Reflection
3) Full Consent of the Will
1)The "grave matter" is stealing, not the amount stolen.What would reduce it to only a venial sin is if the thief didn't know stealing was a mortal sin or a crime.
2)The sufficient reflection is planning on stealing and knowing it is morally unjustiafiable, no matter if it is a dime or $100 or from a rich person or a poor person, it is the "sufficient reflection" which is necessary for a sin to be mortal rather than venial, not the content of the sin.
3)The full consent of the will is that one takes steals the money with no compunction whatsoever about it, whether it is a dime, or $100 or from a poor person or a rich one.
What would make a thief who steals commit not a mortal sin but a venial sin? Let me see:
1) stealing is grave matter, no matter what is stolen or from whom, so that wouldn't be it.
2) If one simply takes a dime out of opportunity and without sufficient reflection, that would reduce the sin to a venial one and maybe even if one steals the Church collection on the spur of the moment because it was out in the open and no one was watching it (not returning it and spending it would be another story though)
3) If one were drunk, immature, hypnotized or otherwise incapacitated or compromised mentally, this would reduce it from a mortal to a venial sin.
So, PI, I suggest your seminary training was seriously flawed if "grave matter" is reduced to the "amount of what is taken, or from whom it is taken" when the grace matter is "stealing" period, no matter how much or from whom. There are not different degrees of mortal sin! There are two types of sin, Original and Actual and then there are two types of actual sin, venial and mortal. I know of no other gradations.
Show me where it is the Church's teaching. Aquinas is not "the Church." I mean like Dogma. Where is it stated that it is less sinful to steal from the rich than it is to steal from the poor. Show me...please.
And, I notice you use "Traditional Catholic Moral Theology," but you hate the term "Traditional Latin Mass." Interesting. So if, as you so insist, the TLM is merely custom and not dogmatically fixed, then neither is your "traditional Catholic Morality." Show me in Dogma where it is stated that stealing from the rich is only a venial sin.
Pin - Suggesting that "the Bible, the Catechism and the Magisterium are better references for us than Augustine, Aquinas..." is a straw man. You cannot subdivide the Church's magisterial teaching.
Augustine is quoted 87 times in the Catechism and Aquinas 61 times. (I was surprised; I'd have thought Aquinas would have had the higher number. Poor St. Nicholas of Flue get but one citation, but I digress.)
While you may choose to disregard such Catholic luminaries as Augustine and Aquinas, I, knowing that Catholic theology is synthetic and subsists of the entire Sacred Tradition, will continue to attend to their magisterial role.
Good Father - what, then, do you do, then with Aquinas' citation of Augustine: "sin is graver according as it does more harm."
Good Father, the graveness of a sin as it affects the one sinned against is about psychology and sociology, not theology and doctrine. We're speaking of what mortal sin with all its prerequisites does to the sinner. I would say that damnation of the sinner is greater theologically than the damage the sin does to the victim which could be great in some cases.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, Once again, you are dissimulating. I'll try once more: Show me Chapter and Verse, where the Holy Catholic Church teaches officially, infallibly, and dogmatically, that it is less sinful to steal from a rich person than it is to steal from a poor person.
Anyone show me...Fr. MacDonald, Marc, Anon5, Templar, Henry, Militia...anyone. I want to see it in print.
*crickets chirping*
It may be that we are fixated on the 'rich man' instead of the sinner. Perhaps the example should be stealing and apple from a fruitful tree versus stealing the last apple in a starving village. The rich man argument distracts us with our opinion of rich people. In any case, the difference is the commitment to sin of the person. If the person stole from the tree and would just as easily have stolen the last apple from the starving village, then it seems they are the same sin, it was only the lack of opportunity that separates them. Conversely, the person who steals in any amount and is truly contrite for it, is forgiven. I have not read Aquinas in many years, but my recollection is that he was concerned with the 'object' lesson versus setting a scale of sin based on farthings.
rcg
*crickets still chirping...maybe a frog or two in the chorus*
Pin, where did I say I agreed with PI on this topic? I said the complete opposite of what he said!
I'm so confused right now...
I do have to regretfully agree with Pater Ignotus on this issue. The amount taken does affect whether the sin is mortal or veninal. The status of the person from whom one is taking is probably not the issue, but the amount taken can change the severity of the sin. There is a difference between taking paper from your work and burglarizing a house to take a TV.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
"[T]hey are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft."
So, the person from whom you're taking is not the issue, but the amount taken can make an otherwise mortal son venial. To fix the analogy, taking $100 is probably mortal sin whereas taking $1 is probably not. I can't agree with you about the status of the person from whom you are taking being the deciding factor in every instance, Pater, but I do understand your logic and it does seem to flow logically from the things we agree on here. I just think it is a dangerous slope to teach that publicly, though, for the reasons Pin has pointed out.
Also, again I hate to say this, Pater is right that the teachings of the Theologians are the official teachings of the Church. So, one can rely on the teachings of St. Thomas and St. Augustine, for example. They are one of the sources of Catholic doctrine.
And, no, Pin, I'm not going crazy and being overly conciliatory with Pater. This is something he is right about.
Do we not have to have post-Vatican II sensiblities about this as well as modern Biblical research into the nature of sin and what it does not only to the one sinned against but the sinner?
Jesus does not do away with any moral law in his public ministry but what he does do is to day that the moral law isn't enough, one needs to move toward maximum performance, doing the most, not the least in terms of following Christ.
The minimalism of Aquinas and others, who clearly are pre-Vatican II theologians is rather astounding.
We look to the three categories of what makes a sin a mortal sin--grave matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.
It is always grave matter to steal because the theif has a moral blind spot whether it is a paperclip or a million dollars.
Certainly from a legalist point of view there is a great difference between stealing a paperclip and a million dollars and the punishment in civil law if different for both, but in terms of Jesus' maximum performance, being a thief is punishable by eternal damnation if not repented.
After Vatican II Catholic were asked not just to list their sins like in a grocery list but to go the core of the sin. Stealing means I'm a thief and I don't respect other people's property and I think I can take that which doesn' belong to me--that sounds like grave matter apart from specific examples.
The husband that commits adultery certainly should confess that even with a prostitute on a one night stand, but the core serious matter is his contempt and cavalier attitude toward his vows of fidelity in marriage and his infidelity to public vows and his wife, no matter how minor the infraction of such or how serious--that's the grave matter--his cavalier attitude about fidelity.
Do I make myself sufficiently clear?
Show me in the Catechism where this is taught. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the Catechism. Kavanaugh/ Ignotus stated that it is less sinful to steal from a rich person than it is to steal from a poor person. I want to see where this is taught. Once again, Thomas is not the Magisterium. BTW, which theologians are the official teachings of the Church...Kung, Von Balthassar, Schillebeex? Or, what about Scotus or Anselm? They did not agree on many subjects. Theology and Dogma are different.
I have the following questions:
1. If I only shoot someone once instead of five times, is it less sinful?
2. If I only play touchy feely with a woman who isn't my wife, is it less of adultery?
3. If we only abort defrormed fetuses is it less murder?
Now, how do we judge what is taking too much and what isn't? What is the dollar amount that is the threshold for stealing becoming a mortal sin. What is the annual income level of the victim that determines what is grave theft and what is merely venial?
Now, in the same fun vein, what is the clothing/touching threshold that determines adultery/fornication...I guess an unbuttoned shirt or blouse is ok, but what about touching over clothes? What if you keep your underwear on? What if you go skinny dipping and only look without touching? I had a Catholic girlfriend in HS and we actually had discussions like this...practicums, if you will.
Also, If Christ said that to even lust after a woman is sin, then surely having a desire to steal is also a sin...or is desiring to commit adultery more sinful than desiring to steal, or desiring to kill, or hating my parents?
Finally, the "sources" of Catholic doctrine are not Catholic Doctrine. Theological discussions and talking moral theology (a philosophical mire, btw) are not good sources of dogma. The Commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal;" there are no qualifiers. I cannot find in the Catechism where there are any qualifiers, either.
So, AGAIN, I ask, show me where the Church teaches officially, infallibly, and dogmatically that stealing from a rich person is less sinful than stealing from a poor person. Really, this can't be that difficult.
PS What are you gonna' tell your kids? Well, it is ok to steal from that rich person's garage...rich people are evil. But, don't steal from Tommy's folks because his Dad works at the plant. Keep this up, folks, and Obama will be joining the Catholic Church...
What if you steal the dollars from a European when the exchange rate is in his favour? Maybe we should define sin in Euros. And then there is the whole International Dateline thing. And Pin, what calibre did you use to shoot and from how far away?
A child steals candy from a bowl at Christmas because the bowl is large and full so the amount is not noticed. In so doing he is calculating the sin to make it more difficult to detect or to mitigate the punishment. That is an even greater sin than if he simply snatched it out of childish selfishness. We are helping sinners become better at sinning with these equivocations. What Christ taught us is to temper our reactions so that we could forgive the great sinner as easily as the lowly when the person has true contrition. As we have discussed before, forgiveness is not always a good thing, either.
rcg
A while back in the 70's, that disgusting lib hack, Bill Moyers did a special on "Southern Religion: A Mighty Fortress." He focused on the congregationalist churches in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. At one Mississippi Baptist church, there had just been a revival with one of those what I used to call "King James Version, jumping up and down, total immersion, dinner on the ground" fire and brimstone preachers. And, did he ever send everybody to Hell.
Well, dozens went down the aisle and gave their hearts to Jesus, among them a drop dead gorgeous, the very Devil in cut-off blue jeans teen-age girl. Moyers was interviewing her after her very emotional "conversion," and he asked, "Now, you have just given your life to Christ. What does it mean to you that He died for yor sins, that He died to redeem you?"
The still tearful girl looked into the distance and thought for a moment, then she responded in her heavy Mississippi accent(I'm sure to the thrill of her parents), "Wale, Ah reckon I won't be a goin' nekkid swimmin' with boys anymore."
At the time, I roared with laughter and thought, "What a shallow and immediate understanding of sin and redemption." Now, after years of pastoring Protestant churches and years of academic discussions of "moral theology" and, now, six years as a faithful Catholic layman seeking understanding, I believe there was a profundity to her naive statement that I missed. The discussion we are having reinforces that belief.
RCG you are pointing out what I am saying. In the past, and Aquinas and Augustine and others embraced a more juridical or legalistic understanding of sin and its consequences in the temporal order. A priest hearing the confession of a person would naturally give a different type of punishment to the repentant thief depending upon the gravity of the offenes in temporal terms. Yes, I would give a different penance to someone who stole $100 dollars from a rich person compared to stealing that amount from a destitute family who were starving. But this distinction is in terms of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin, not the actual punishment given to someone who is unrepentant at the moment of death. But even for forgiven sins, our Lord's determination of the necessity of purgatory is to fulfill in the legal since the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin that might not have been fully satisfied in this life but would be completed through the purifying love of God in what we call purgatory, but even that is all about temporal punishment, not eternal damnation for the unrepentant.
I have enjoyed this debate immensely, and have left it to my betters to conduct, but now that it seems that in typical Liberal fashion the other side has crawled back into it's hole and stopped defending it's position I shall step upon this stage to offer not Doctrine, or Dogma, but wisdom of another kind from another expert.
"A Rose by any other name, would still smell as sweet".
When it comes to a violation of any of the 10 Commandments there are no degrees. All are mortal. It doesn't take a Seminary education or Theology degree to understand that. It's as clear as the nose on your face.
Mortal vs. venial sin. Mortal sin is to knowingly, and willfully break one of the 10 commandments.
To take something that does not belong to you is a Mortal sin.
We have no way of knowing how stealing $100 from a rich man will affect him. Did my crime create hate for humanity, greed where there was generosity? How did that, in turn, harm others whom might have benefited from the rich man's good will?
Father Kwiatkowski (sic) gave a wonderful homily on sin and purgatory.
Justifying your crime (stealing from the wealthy not the poor), therefore, would be another sin (venial sin). The thief did not knowingly or willfully say I am going to justify my theft, regardless of how this might displease God.
So PI, are you not possibly committing a venial sin by justifying what type of theft is mortal sin? And, therefore, possibly committing mortal sin by then condemning laity with flawed theology?
Personally, I would rather not split hairs with my soul at stake.
As for Augustine and Aquinas could they possibly have been referring to damnation or time in purgatory; and not whether the sin is mortal or venial? I have not read either extensively, but it would make logical sense. This would also help determine the penance given the sinner, would it not?
Thanks, Anon. Ignotus/Kavanaugh is kind of a "joker" priest...not as in funny, but as in Joel Grey in "Cabaret." Instead of "Ad Introibo..." I hear him chanting, "Come to the Cabaret, my friend...."
"After Vatican II Catholic were asked not just to list their sins like in a grocery list but to go the core of the sin. Stealing means I'm a thief and I don't respect other people's property and I think I can take that which doesn' belong to me--that sounds like grave matter apart from specific examples."
Perhaps this is where the wishy-washy theology and confusion stems from.
It is much easier to empathize with a sinner when you know what motivated them. It is part of our humanity to empathize, and priests are human. This would be more appropriate for a private meeting for spiritual counseling, than the confessional.
Counseling in the confessional, therefore, should be brief, and about the sin; not the justification for the sin. God already knows the sinner's heart and what stains the soul carries.
We cannot presume God's forgiveness, that would be another sin; would it not?
Anon 10:39 - At no time did I justify theft. I did not say this, suggest this, nor imply that ANY sin is justified.
Read what I said, not what Pin or anyone else said I said. And when Pin, or anyone else says, "Well, this is what you implied..." I suggest you ask me, rather than accepting their jaundiced views.
I have not, at any time, presented flawed theology. If you think my theology here is flawed, then take that up with Aquinas and Augustine and the Catholic Moral Theology Traditon. That is what I have presented.
The question was asked, "What the hell kind of priest are you?" I am a priest who knows what the Church teaches and, as importantly, what the Church does not teach.
The teachings of the Theologians is a source of Catholic Doctrine. The word “theologians” is used in this sense to convey particular people, that is for example St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Theologians does not include people like Hans Kung and the modern theologians. If you doubt the Church believes this way, consider the following from Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical Fausto Appetente Die:
“[T]he Church declared the teaching of Thomas [Aquinas] to be her own and that Doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontiffs, the master and patron of Catholic schools.”
Moreover, the Church has adopted the definition of mortal sin as set forth by St. Augustine: Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam.
Therefore, I hope you will believe that the Theologians are a source of Catholic doctrine as it is really not up for debate although I see the confusion caused by my use of the word without supplying the definition.
As to the question at hand regarding theft as a mortal sin. I want to address what I see as two issues in the hypothetical given by Pater. Both of these deal with the first requirement for a mortal sin: whether there is grave matter. The two prongs of the hypothetical are: First, does the wealth of the person from whom one is taking matter? Second, does the amount taken matter?
With regard to the first prong, the Roman Catechism says the following:
“But do we not sometimes hear the thief contend that he is not guilty of sin, because he steals from the rich and the wealthy, who, in his mind, not only suffer no injury, but do not even feel the loss? Such an excuse is as wretched as it is baneful.”
We could imagine a set of facts wherein the status of the victim may mitigate or aggravate the sin, but the Roman Catechism seems clear enough: the status of the person as rich does not mitigate the damage. It does not speak of the inverse wherein one takes from the poor, but I think we can all see that such a taking is always a mortal sin as we owe a special duty to the poor: this is something our Blessed Lord was very clear about.
With regard to the second prong, dealing only with the amount and not the victim, again, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Still, as happens with regard to other delinquencies, its guilt may often be venial. This is particularly true when the value of what is filched is inconsiderable, or as the theologians say, is not grave matter.”
Here is St. Thomas Aquinas clarifying this matter for us by providing the logic behind it: “Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought.”
So, we can see the logic here. There is debate about what is so de minimus as to negate the requirements for mortal sin, surely. But I would say that taking a paperclip from an office fits into that category – unless one has been told that such takings are against the will of the business owner, for example. There are assuredly other factors to consider; however, I hope I have sufficiently shown that not every theft is mortal sin, by reference to the Theologians St. Thomas Aquinas.
Well, of course, if it is not against the will of the owner it isn't theft. We are now logic chopping. Knowingly, willingly stealing something from someone against their will is a mortal sin. Once again, Aquinas and Augustine never deny that stealing is a sin. Aquinas is qualifying the socio-theological consequences. Also, Aquinas is noit the Church in toto. For guidance in the Christian life, I will take the Catechism and Scripture over Aquinas. Now, if you want a really unequivocal explanation of sin, check out Calvin's Institutes. Calvin was not wrong about everything...plus, he was a devout Catholic for many years.
PS Ignotus/Kavanaugh, you are not aware of what you imply in your pop theology. If you were, you would be more concerned about it. Now, run turn Godspell back on...
I was gonna' steal Templar's car after Mass yesterday, but he would not tell me his tax bracket so I didn't. I just don't have time to keep running to Confession...
Pin, St. Thomas is not "logic chopping" - he is clearly stating the teaching. Moreover, he does not say that the "victim" does not actually care about the theft or consents to it, he says that it is presumed the victim does not care when the amount is de minimus. Now, me and St. Thomas are not arguing that there are many occasions where theft is a venial sin: we are simply saying, contra your position, that such occasions exist.
Also, I think we can agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is utterly useless as regards its section on the Seventh Commandment. So, neither of us are in a position where we can rely on the current Catechism on this particular point. I will note, however, that the Roman Catechism, while not addressing our particular issue, is much more helpful in its discussion of the Seventh Commandment.
Finally, I want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, which has been one of the more civil discussions we've had on this blog. In a couple weeks, I have to teach the RCIA class about the Seventh Commandment and I feel like we have all worked through some very important points, which has helped me begin planning that class.
I am so glad our financial standing is ambiguous. templar was driving my car. Lol. Now what if the 100 the thief steals from the rich man were intended for his impoverished neighbor? Is it mortal sin? How is the thief to be sure he only steals from the rich?
I did not say Thomas was logic chopping, I said we are. Thomas was inclined to some rather abstruse discussions...e.g. "When a higher angel addresses a lower angel, does he also enlighten him?"
Then, there is the old saw about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
Let us leap forward to the post-Aristotelian world into practical moral theology and suggest that, for the flock, such notions as theft is occasionally ok are both dangerous and irresponsible. Or, are we to argue that Immanuel Kant's ethic is superior to that of Aquinas (which,in this case, I might argue that it is).
pin, Your post made me think that the more dangerous idea that underlies our discussion here is the idea that something is "just" a venial sin and is therefore "ok" or merely a personality flaw. Perhaps the bigger problem is that we've lost a true understanding of the magnitude of all sin, but venial sin in particular. We have lost a sense of (what for it...) compunction!
And I wonder why? Could it be the rupture between the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo, particularly the removal from the orations of most mentions of our wretchedness and guilt?
If the loss of a sense of sin were limited to Catholics, then the loss of the "wretched" orations might be thought of as the cause.
However, since this loss is not limited to Catholics, but is a phenomenon throughout our society, it doesn't seem to me that we can identify as the cause something that would be experienced by Catholics only.
Catholics and I suspect other Christians don't know about sin precisely because sin and its consequences are never preached. When is the last time PI that you had a homily and Original Sin, Actual Sin and its two types, venial and mortal? And do you even know what is being taught in your ccd program in every parish you've been?
Have you ever preached about the possibility of going to hell?
More than likely you give people intellectual pablum and sedate them from the larger realities of the purpose of the passion and thus the purpose of the Mass and thus the economy of salvation.
I suspect if we still used our Baltimore Catechism of our text books and we preached hell fire and damnation homilies, there would be a better sense of sin.
Wow - Someone got up on the wrong side of his celibate couch this morning.
I'm preaching on the biblical theme of overturning idolatry this Lent. It's been good, if I say so myself. If you want to know if it has been "intellectual pablum" you can ask those who listen.
And my faculties to preach come from the same source as yours, so I am not subject to your review.
What does "overturning idolatry" mean? Is this like anti-materialism?
That is a good topic to preach on and I like the idea of doing a series on that as it is really the basis for many of our current problems (I include the false notion of religious liberty in the realm of materialism/human respect/ idols).
"They worshipped and served created things rather than the creator." (Romans 1:25)
Overturning Idolatry...that's nice and abstract and vague and non-threatening. May I suggest the following topics for a bit more Lenten punch:
1. Fry with That?
2. Who's Grilling Tonight?
3. Fire Insurance:Allstate or Almighty?
4. What's Hot and What's Not?
5. Satan's Superbowl Party.
6. You Think Lindsay Lohan's Hot; Wait 'Til You Get to Hell.
7. Sinners on the Barbie.
8. Jesus Christ: God's VISA Card
9. Sin: It's the Real Thing
10. Television: Satan's Picture Book
Thank you, but I don't accept preaching tips from a person who skips mass when it strikes his fancy.
I don't skip Mass when it strikes my fancy. I skip when apostate Priests are saying it.
PS You probably could take a few preaching tips from me, Kavanaugh.
Post a Comment