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.”

Open To What?

I've often wondered about their motto myself. The "open minds" part worried me most. An open mind is like an open trap. It isn't useful unless it closes on something.

Methodist 'Openness' Motto Queried — Open to What?
Acquittal of Lesbian Pastor Source of Distress at UMC's General Conference
By Fred Jackson and Jim Brown
April 28, 2004

"(AgapePress) – United Methodists meeting in Pittsburgh appear deeply divided over whether their denomination's motto –'Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors' — requires acceptance of behavior that the Bible calls sinful."

Another Viewpoint

In the interest of fairness, the following offers an opposing viewpoint to the “John
Kerry must not receive communion” chant.

Dublin Archbishop
warns against politicisation of Eucharist

“New Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin expressed concern about interpretations
of Vatican instructions that could lead to the Eucharist becoming a ‘political
battleground’.”

Denying
Communion on abortion is last resort, Bishop Gregory says

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

“ROME (CNS) — Denying Communion to a politician such as Sen. John F. Kerry,
who supports legalized abortion, must be the last resort in a process to convince
the politician to uphold moral truths when voting, said the president of the U.S.
bishops’ conference.”

Katholic Politicians

Why Communion Could Be Denied
to Anti-Life Legislators

Interview With an American Theologian in Rome

“ROME, APRIL 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Moves by the Church to deny Holy Communion
to staunchly pro-abortion Catholic politicians are growing.”

What
Vatican II did, and didn’t, teach about conscience

Elections and voting booths are never `faith-free’ zones

“Vatican II must be the most widely praised and rarely followed council in
Catholic history -at least when it comes to candidates and voters.

Catholics who appeal to the “spirit of Vatican II” and claim to be following
their consciences when they ignore Catholic teaching on issues of vital public importance
would be wise to revisit what the council actually said.”

Analysis:
Kerry and Catholicism

By Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religion Correspondent

“Washington, DC, Apr. 19 (UPI) — There are between 25 and 30 million Catholic
voters in the United States, most of whom favored the Democrats. But today about
40 percent are independents. And they make up a big chunk in swing states such as
Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — states the
presumptive Democrat candidate John Kerry must win if he wants to make it to the
White House.”

For
Catholic Politicians, a Hard Line

By Charlotte Allen
Sunday, April 11, 2004; Page B01

“Today, Easter Sunday, tens of millions of American Catholics will crowd into
churches to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion in honor of Christianity’s most
sacred feast day, the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Among those
standing in the Communion line may be Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the likely
Democratic nominee for president.”

Canon
Law and Catholic In Name Only

“A debate is brewing around St. Blog over the appropriateness of refering to
pro-abort ‘Catholic’ politicians as Catholic In Name Only (CINO). Initially,
I intended to stay clear of this controversy since I’m personally not fond of the
CINO label. This has nothing to do with canon law and everything to do with taste
— I prefer the much more inflamatory (and I would argue accurate) designation of
Demoncrat.”

Catholic(?) Kerry
Watch

“Chronicling Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry’s desperate attempts
to maintain his status as ‘a Catholic in good standing’ while publicly
flouting the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.”

More About “Father” Bill

Priest may be forming breakaway church
Catholic leaders issue stern warning
Thursday, April 08, 2004
By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

"A Catholic priest, who was transferred two years ago after delivering a vulgar Easter homily advocating the ordination of women and married men, may be starting a breakaway church, Catholic officials said yesterday."

Roman Catholic priest plans to form own church

By JOE MANDAK, The Associated Press

"PITTSBURGH – A Roman Catholic priest who believes the church should ordain married men and women as priests plans to form his own church, according to a Web site, and Pittsburgh church officials said on Thursday they hope to intervene."

Sometimes Schism is Good

Episcopal
diocese here joins anti-gay group

By Steve Levin, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has joined a new network of dioceses and
parishes that oppose same-sex blessings and the ordination of gay clergy”

Visiting
bishop wants end to rhetoric on gay clergy


By Steve Levin, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“An influential Church of England bishop visiting Pittsburgh this week believes
the crisis in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion over gay ordination is
related to America’s unilateralism.”

I love this quote. “The network does not fit within the governing structure
of [the Episcopal Church],” The network against gay marriage and gay clergy
doesn’t fit, but the American Episcopal Church does?!? They laughed in the face
of the global Anglican Church and established rules and procedures when they “consecrated”
an actively gay bishop.