Considering imputability, it seems like there should just be a hierarchy of sins not a two group system of mortal and venial since the involvement of my will determines my accountability. Why doesn't the church just rank sins from less offensive to most offensive? Or is there a ranking but it is just not taught much? The church says abortion is worse than use of contraception when it says abortion is worthy of excommunication, contraceptive use is not. Why not rank all sins and not use the idea of mortal and venial?

CCC1735 "Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors."

Mike

-- Michael Hitzelberger (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), January 29, 2002

Answers

Michael,

My guess would be for simplicity's sake. For example, people rage against the two-party system, and want proportional representation for the hundreds of small "parties" that are floating around, so we have true democracy. Problem is, similar such governments in experimental European democracies collapsed because of their innate inefficiency.

In a similar sense, the seperation between grave (mortal) and venial sins is a very simple and humanly understandable method of letting people know for which offenses they must absolutely see a confessor, ASAP.

Within the two-category system, there is indeed an objective spectrum, coupled with a theology of imputability. But this has such potential for complication (and deliberate distortion) that it is not generally profitable to dwell on, IMO. I think a good principle is, if there's no awareness of any mortal sin, to just confess everything with sincere sorrow.

Although, admittedly, I forget stuff sometimes. *sheepish smile*

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), January 30, 2002.

Michael,

I understand what you're saying, but think that the two-tier system is really only a guideline to tell us when we stepped in a puddle vs. fell down a well sort of thing. God in the end will judge us on our actions, but (at least IMO) this will be as a loving father, and taking into account our biologic condition, societal influences & stresses, etc. This being the case, I'm not sure that an objective ranking of sins would be the exact same for everyone. This is just an opinion though, and I could also see the opposing view which would be that since there is an *objective* truth, there could be an objective weighting to the sins we commit as well. Well, that probably wasn't very helpful, but there it is!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 30, 2002.

Mike,

Venial faults are of two kinds: Those that are deliberate, that is commited with full knowledge that one is about to displease God and with a deliberate selfish preference for a created good to the divine will. The others are such as are commited through suprise, fickleness, fraility, lack of courage and regretted on the spot, with the firm purpose of commiting them no more.

Sorry if you already knew this, but I put it here just in case!

God bless you.

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 30, 2002.

Mike,

I forgot to add- That Venial sin does not indeed of itself lessen sanctifying grace, but it does affect the existing intimacy of the Soul with God. What a loss this is!

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 30, 2002.

Michael,
I think that Jeffrey has given a really excellent answer to your specific question:
"[T]he seperation between grave (mortal) and venial sins is a very simple and humanly understandable method of letting people know for which offenses they must absolutely see a confessor, ASAP.
"Within the two-category system, there is indeed an objective spectrum, coupled with a theology of imputability."

Thus, within the list of grave sins, every one of them kills the divine life (sanctifying grace) within your soul, but each has a different weight of seriousness, in that lesser or graver consequences to oneself and to others come from them.
Similarly, David S has shown how there are two groups within the list of venial sins. [Thanks, David, for that interesting post. I had never before read something like that.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 30, 2002.

Your welcome, John. If I thanked you for everything I learned from you, there would be about 15,000 thank you's on forum.

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 31, 2002.

Jeff, Frank, Dave, and John

Thank you all for your replies. I see the wisdom after meditating on them for a day. The simplicity of our current moral system is more practical. Awareness of how and why it is set up this way is a blessing. I am fighting demons in my mind or of my mind who want me to get out of the real work God calls me to. Your replys assure me that my sinning, that I am painfully aware of, is God's way of telling me to do more for Him because I can. If I draw close to Him, He will draw close to me and protect me from sin.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), January 31, 2002.

The funny thing about sin is the propensity it has for bringing people to their knees before God. Well, if he saved us with a crucifixion, he can bless us with our spills.

(Note: Yeah, I know it's not sin, but sorrow and grace that brings people to their knees. But c'mon, let me have fun with words.)

"It's a rule, so lump it!" -Frank

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), January 31, 2002.

A sin may be mortal for some and venial for others. It depends on the teaching that they recieve, culture they live in and the knowledge they have. It is as varied as milk is to honey. What I may percieve as a Mortal sin may not be a sin at all to someone else. This is anapproximate ideal on my part and it has guided my conscience to date and it grows to a more refined state everyday.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 19, 2002.

Fred,
Please give us a specific example of the same sin being venial for one person, but mortal for another. Only by seeing an example and knowing how you arrive at such a conclusion can we determine whether or not your statement is correct. The potential difficulty could be just a matter of semantics, but it could be something more serious.
Thanks.

-- (@@@.@), February 20, 2002.

Please answer question Fred.

-- Knight (Former@Knight.com), February 20, 2002.

An example is an alcoholic -- He may think it to be a venial sin for a long time til he awakens to realize that it is in fact a mortal sin when he realizes that it is destroying his life and others.

In this country we consider the act of marriage to be sacred and the act of adultery is totally offensive to GOD and a Mortal Sin. But to an aborigine in the jungle it would not be a mortal sin until he is made aware of the nature of it.

These are just a couple of samples.

-- fred (fbfbfb@fbfbfb.net), February 20, 2002.

Thank you, Fred. Just thought it important to make sure that your previous words were not promoting "moral relativism" (different objective moralities for different people).

My understanding of your examples is that adultery is always inherently evil (a mortal sin), but that a specific adulterer may not bear the full guilt of mortal sin (due to ignorance of the moral law, or some kind of irresistible pressure/addiction, etc.).

-- (@@@.@), February 21, 2002.

is masturbation is a mortal sin

-- taz (jhonj007@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

Ouch

That is a tad touchy. Yes it is if you are fully aware of it's being against GOD and Nature itself. Most definitely. Can it be considered a venial sin? Only if the person is fully unaware of the sinfulness of the act. Did your mother teach you not to play with that thing down there? I don't think I need to say more!!

Blessings

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), May 22, 2002.

Plus, there are considerations such as addiction where the person committing the sin has less control. If one is addicted to masturbation, then they would be less accountable. However, I highly recommend one not use the fact they are addictied to a vice as an excuse to continue. It's still a sin.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), May 22, 2002.

We are talking here about not doing what God told us to do; which is to multiply so masturbation is a mortal sin and what is sexual abstinence, are all roman catholic priests damned?

-- Link (inevereverwillgiveittou@badguy.com), May 30, 2003.

Dear Link

here's a link for you: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

in a nutshell, masturbation is a misuse of the sexual faculty, as is contraception and anything that cannot lead to conception. celibacy is not a misuse as it involves no use. the link provides the Scriptural and other bases that support the very great sacrifice that Catholic priests/monks/nuns are almost unique in making. even in the Eastern Church, i think it's only the bishops that are celibate.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 30, 2003.

Answering your question, Link: ''and what is sexual abstinence, are all roman catholic priests damned?'' -- Link >>>

Abstinence in the priest's vocation is celibacy. Jesus Christ was celibate. You won't suggest He was ''damned'', being celibate, will you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 30, 2003.

Link

To "multiply", in the Old Testament, with the help of the revelation in the New Testament, means to spread the Gospel. Spiritual children are born from priests. Priests spread seed which is the Word. That is also the reason why women can't be priests. Their (women) intended purpose is not to spread seed.

Also masturbation is a serious sin for an adult but not so much for an adolescent. It is a fairly common and natural act. As people of faith, we put such behavior off to the side. Most times the person doing it is not like Onan (Gen 38)in the Old Testament. Meaning they are not doing it with the intention of avoiding mating. In fact it probably increases the chance of that.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 31, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mike H.

I think that I don't understand the second half of your last message (or I may disagree with parts of it). I'll break it into several parts now.

Also masturbation is a serious sin for an adult but not so much for an adolescent.
I don't think that I could put it that way. Whenever it is done, it is "grave matter" -- thus potential resulting in "serious sin." I believe that there are many mature adolescents and many adults who are aware of the seriousness, yet consent with their wills to sin mortally. Then there are immature people, more often adolescent than adult, whose subjective guilt may be lessened or even nonexistent. But there are also addicted people, more often adult than adolescent, whose subjective guilt may be lessened or even nonexistent.

It is a fairly common and natural act.
Fairly common -- yes -- but "natural"? Never. Just the opposite is true, since masturbation is a deed against the "natural" law. It is an unnatural use of a great gift. (Perhaps you meant to use a word other than "natural?")

As people of faith, we put such behavior off to the side.
I don't know what you mean by "put[ting it] off to the side." Does that mean "disregarding it as unimportant"? If so, I can't agree, because it is grave matter and therefore important.

Most times the person doing it is not like Onan (Gen 38)in the Old Testament. Meaning they are not doing it with the intention of avoiding mating.
Again I don't quite understand. Onan did have intercourse [not "avoiding mating"] but he interrupted it to prevent the begetting of sons who would inherit his brother's property. He acted for mere pleasure -- just as most people do today when they commit the sin of masturbation.

In fact it probably increases the chance of that.
Sorry, I'm unclear. Are you saying that habitual masturbation "probably increases the chance of" a person not finding a spouse? If so, I have heard that you are probably right.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 05, 2003.