Tag Archives: sin

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.” Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal – so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man.” But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us – that is, charity – necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.”

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices. They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.

Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

– by protecting evil-doers.

Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”

Pencils Down

This one one irks me. An
archbishop in Brisbane, Australian has spoken out against what he calls “spying
in church”
. He wants people to stop taking notes of liturgical abuses.
To a certain extent, I understand where he’s coming from. Sacrifice and worship
should be the focus of the mass, not keeping track of every little thing done not
quite right. However, I can’t agree with his insistence that all note-taking stop.
If their weren’t abuses to report, people wouldn’t need to take notes. If nobody
takes notes, abuses go unreported. If abuses go unreported, the Eucharist may continue
to be desecrated and the Church disobeyed.

It’s ironic that this archbishop would squelch note-taking in order to restore focus
to the Eucharist, but that very squelching could lead to the improper handling of
that same Eucharistic worship. Redemptionis Sacramentum was written for a
reason – there were abuses to be corrected. I’ve witnessed first-hand the apparent
ignorance of, or perhaps apathy towards, that document in parishes. In those places,
it’s up to the faithful remnant of the laity to report abuses to the Church. How
else will they be corrected?

The Sin of Nice

Recently, the proprietor of this blogspace, Mr. Funky Dung, commented
about the "nice things" I say here from time to time. Though I am reasonably
certain that Mr. Dung intended it as a compliment, perhaps in the vein of "nice
arse kicking" or "nice proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem," part
of me was quite taken aback [I meant it in the sense of "nice reasoning"
or "well thought out response" or "good points". – Funky]

You see, "nice" has been registered as a complaint leveled against
Evangelicaldom in recent years. And as one of the token Evangelicals in these blogparts,
I must confess that I take the criticism to be all too often valid. I am therefore
probably more sensitive to occurrences of this word that most folks, not having
been accused of the sin of nice, use in a completely innocent, even complimentary,
way. Let me ‘splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up

Continue reading

Foaming at the Mouth

[Minor mistakes of grammar and spelling have been fixed. – Funky]

Theomorph, my resident atheist gadfly, seems to be losing his cool. His latest tirade against Christianity lacks the kind of logical consistency and civility his previous posts had. Continue reading

Delayed Reaction

This morning someone commented on an entry I posted July 31.

“Dude, you were raised lutheran, you were an agnostic and now you think you’re like, what, the pope’s right hand man? Take it from this cradle catholic and quit judging people. Don’t think you can just crash the party and start playing the records that you want. I was an altar girl when I was in school and now they’re saying that women have to know their place? Excuse me, but I don’t have to agree to that.

You so funny. Ooh, heresy! Let’s burn ’em at the stake! Sorry, dude, but we left the inquisition behind. Why don’t you warm up with a little social justice work instead?”

Deb

What was I writing about that could rile Deb so?

Continue reading

Correcting and Reproving vs Instructing and Teaching

I don't read my Bible nearly so often as I should. I suppose I could use the typical Catholic excuse that I get a dose of Scripture every time I go to mass, but I think that's a cop out. Catholics may not believe in sola scriptura but that's no reason that we should be scriptura ignara. But I digress.

During Tuesday's RCIA class, I opened my Bible to follow along with the lesson. Out of curiosity, I looked at the pages I had marked. Have you ever had the experience of opening the Bible to a random spot and finding something that seemed to speak directly to you in your current condition? Well that happened to. I found the following to be very comforting in my frustration dealing with people on both sides of the Red vs. Blue battle.

"He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse,
   and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury.
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
   reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
   teach a righteous man and he will increase in learning.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
   and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. For by me your days will be multiplied,
   and years will be added to your life.
If you are wise, you are wise for yourself;
   if you scoff, you alone will bear it."

Proverbs 7:7-12 (RSV)

After contemplating those verses, I thought of this bit from the Gospel According to Matthew that seemed appropriate. It also has broader application to God-blogging.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."

Matthew 7:1-6 (RSV)