[Will] someone please give me a clear cut Catholic explanation that a 7 year old can understand (I'm like a seven year old when it comes to understanding things sometimes.) of the following:

(The Catholic Catechism) 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 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.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

I would like to know if mortal sins will be forgiven and if they too can be unforgiven under what circumstances or remedies, huh?

-- Rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003

Answers

Every repented sin can be forgiven. Venial sins by the act of inner repentence alone, and mortal sins by repentence expressed through the sacrament of reconciliation (sacramental confession). Note what the Catechism verse says - It is only those who personally reject forgiveness by refusing to repent who will not be forgiven. The Holy Spirit is God working in us to draw us back to Himself. Therefore,"blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" means complete rejection of God's inspiration and guidance. Since it is only God's inspiration that can draw us to repentence through the voice of conscience, rejection of the Holy Spirit's working in our lives means cutting ourselves off from the very source of the grace of repentence, and therefore from the possibility of forgiveness.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Nicely stated Paul. Well done.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.

Understood!

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Um, how does one differentiate between a mortal and a venial sin? I know mortal is serious, but how serious is serious?

-- marie (m@peace.com), March 28, 2003.

Here's what I found in the Catholic Catechism (glossary):

MORTAL SIN: A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will (1855, 1857).

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

i have always wondered why, as a practical matter, it is necessary to distinguish between a mortal and a venial sin? i can think of two (bad) reasons:

1 you should not taken Holy Communion if in mortal sin (a bad reason, because you should probably have attended confession beforehand - where you are in doubt as to the nature of the sin) 2 your priest tells you to hurry up in confession (a bad reason because you are in confession already - and the priest should listen to what you have to say)

as i understand it, in the case where a mortal sin has been committed and the sinner dies before repenting in confession, then so long as the sinner is truly sorry for that sin, and would have attended confession in the normal course (ie he did not know that he was about to be run over by that steamroller), that sin is considered forgiven whether it is venial or mortal.

so i wonder why there is a need in practice to distinguish?

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 28, 2003.

Dear Ian,

It is true that a person who commits a mortal sin, is truly repentent, and has sincere and imminent plans for sacramental confession, but dies before he can physically get there, is forgiven. The real reason for distinguishing between mortal and venial sin is that unrepented mortal sin cuts a person off from a life of sanctifying grace, and makes one eligible for eternity in hell. Unrepented venial sin does not. That's why scripture refers to mortal sin as "sin leading to death" (which of course is what "mortal" means). It is only prudent to distinguish between that which is potentially deadly and that which is not.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 28, 2003.

So if a person accepts Christ as their Savior, and then sins knowingly, Gods forgiveness through His Son is removed as if the person never accepted Christ at all?

If this is true, it sounds as if Christians should be in continual fear of losing their salvation then, never knowing if they are in God's grace or not, knowing if they slip (being human... slipping and sinning... hmmm even knowingly... hmmm Better watch your speed and your language the next time you are driving)

Please give the Biblical verses where this is stated.

-- Karen (starvger@sandwalking.com), July 09, 2003.

Philipians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

-- none (it@aint.important), July 09, 2003.

"So if a person accepts Christ as their Savior, and then sins knowingly, Gods forgiveness through His Son is removed as if the person never accepted Christ at all?"

A: "forgiveness is removed"? What does that mean? Obviously, forgiveness for sins already repented and forgiven is not reversed. However, new offenses against God likewise require repentance and forgiveness. If I wrong you ten times and you forgive me ten times, does that mean I don't need to seek forgiveness the eleventh time I hurt you?

"If this is true, it sounds as if Christians should be in continual fear of losing their salvation then, never knowing if they are in God's grace or not"

A: It is not true that we never know if we are in God's grace or not. He makes it clear what kinds of sin constitute complete rejection of His grace. He calls such sins "mortal", or "deadly", because grace is the life of the soul ...

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is also a sin leading to death ... " (1 John 5:16)

and,God in His infinite goodness and love has provided the necessary means of opening our hearts once again to His grace in our lives, even after we have driven grace from our souls by committing a deadly sin. Therefore, we can always know whether we are currently in a state of grace, and we can always return to a state of grace through repentance.

It is inaccurate to speak of "losing our salvation", because we can't lose what we do not yet have, and the Bible makes it clear that we do not receive salvation until our earthly life is over ...

"But the one who endures to the end, he WILL BE saved" (Matthew 24:13)

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he WILL BE saved" (Mark 13:13)

"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win." (1 Corinthians 9:24)

However, it is correct to speak of "forfeiting" salvation, which means that we will never receive it. Paul warns us clearly ...

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12)

"I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after having preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified" (1 Corinthians 9:27)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 09, 2003.

Question: Where is the list of mortal/deadly sins?

-- Robert B Williams (willibo@wirefire.com), August 13, 2003.

Hi Robert welcome

The Church to my knowledge doesnt teach that there is a COMPLETE list of mortal sins but in each age the church clarrifies Gods law and lists some of the evil acts. Ill post a list of some of these mortal sins on another thread for you.

To commit mortal sin one must be substantially aware that what one is doing is gravely wrong and one must be substantially free in ones conduct.

The whole idea is something I havent got sorted out myself have have many dificulties with, nevertheless Ill shut up theres enough "problems" at our forum without me being a pain.

Skoobouy I just saw you post recently if youre still around do you mind telling me what youve been taught in the seminary regarding mortal sin, is it moving away from the traditional check list, single action type senario and more towards being considered as a disposition or lifestyle choice type senario?

Do you think the concept of MORTAL SIN in the form it has been taught in the past will continue, do you see any clarrifications etc.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.

Jmj

Kiwi, to get an answer to your last question about mortal sin, I recommend that you read (1) what the Catechism says on the subject and (2) what Pope John Paul says about it in (a) "On Reconciliation and Penance" and in (b) "The Splendor of Truth."

In your second-last question to Skoobouy, I see a hint that you have run into some unreliable moral theology (rejected by the pope) that refers to a supposed "fundamental option" for or against God. Dissident theologians are so "transparent," it's laughable! Let's face it. Some of them want to be able to commit mortal sins, so they invented this concept (brand new since Vatican II) whereby they can "feel" that they haven't gravely sinned as long as they have never made some kind of a firm, formal commitment (a "fundamental option") against God. No way, says the pope! Each human act is independent of the rest and is capable of resulting in a mortal sin and even damnation. One needn't make some kind of "fundamental choice."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.

The trouble with discussions like this is that many people are looking at their own personal issues and trying to fudge on them - especially the sexual ones.

People who are struggling with habitual sin (vices) and who tend to fight, struggle, then fall, over and over again (like Luther) are also tempted to either settle for a belief that there are no sins that can remove us from the love of God and place us under his just condemnation, or they are tempted to believe that there is no such thing as hell or sin itself - and this belief does certainly have great psychological and emotive power! Many people feel a wave of euphoria and sense of "peace" when they've finally quieted their consciences once and for all.

But just because you feel a physiological "high" doesn't mean you have experienced grace or your belief is right.

The above beliefs are contrary to reason and the fact of free human will... if you are free, then it follows that it's possible to make the wrong choice - knowing all the consequences. It may not be rational - but given concupiscence, man does not always do the rational thing.

But look at this issue from a 3rd party perspective... or from the perspective of a victim of someone else's actions.

For example, those artillery gunners and snipers who during the mid- 1990's shelled and sniped innocent civilians on a daily basis in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia. What if they were Orthodox Christians who believed in the "fundamental option", or were Evangelical Christians who believe that once saved, always saved?

Individual acts of murder then... would that make them automatically sinful before God? A Catholic would say, well, YES, absolutely.

But the Lutheran or liberal... wouldn't the fundamental option or once-saved-always-saved ideology force them to conclude that "while unfortunate and harmful those actions which resulted in the murder of innocents could not result in the murders' eternal damnation."?

Now a Catholic would say: heck yeah, you're in big trouble, so go to confession, and leave the army (which is forcing you to stay in that "occasion of sin" of targetting civilians).

So Catholics are about changing the situation for the better, not just accepting the status quo.

It may be psychologically refreshing for such men to believe that they are either not murderers or that the murder is justified, or that it doesn't matter because their victims go to heaven and so will they because of their "fundamental option"... but that doesn't make it rational, biblical or right.

The same can be said of the abortionist and mother who knowingly kills her baby out of convenience, the feckless boyfriend or parents who drive her there out of embarrassment, and the politicians who make it legal out of expediency: they are all doing something intriniscally evil, and they are all killing the supernatural life in their souls - they are saying "No" to God by saying "No" to their innocent, defenseless neighbor.

How could a soul who so obstinately says "No" to the wellbeing, health, and life of an innocent and harmless neighbor - such as a child - be in full possession of grace and be welcomed into Heaven as a hero?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2003.

all sins are the same...there's no big or little sin..they all displease God..but the good news is that we can be saved! Salvation is God's favor freely given to man when he puts his faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, resulting in the forgiveness of sins..and salvation can be obtained by faith!isn't that great?

you can pray to God and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior right now and if you already did, you have received forgiveness for your sins (it can also be found in Colossians 1:13-14) and guess how many sins were forgiven? ALL!!!(Colossians 2:13) and all means all whether past, present or future because when it is stated in the Bible, we are not even alive yet but we are already forgiven!

so don't worry from distinguishing mortal from venial..all of them are sins anyway!worry if you're ready to ask Jesus Christ to come into your life, if you are you already know what to do! God BLess You!

-- grace (beyuti_quinn@yahoo.com), August 20, 2003.

Hello, Grace.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. It is vital to distinguish between types of sins.

I notice that you read the Bible, from which you have quoted. Apparently, though, you haven't looked at 1 John lately. I encourage you to read it today, carefully noting the references to sin -- especially to what my patron saint says about mortal/deadly and non-mortal sin in chapter 5.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 20, 2003.

Dear Grace,

It is certainly true that all sin offends God. But it is plain ridiculous to say that God sees no difference between stealing an apple from your neighbor and murdering your neighbor. There are indeed "big" and "little" sins. No-one is completely free of sin. Therefore, if all sin were equal in God's eyes, and He consequently dealt with all sinners in the same way, we would necessarily have to conclude either that no-one goes to hell, or that everyone goes to hell, either of which would clearly contradict the Bible.

John 19:11 quotes Jesus Himself stating... "You would have no power at all over me, except it were given you from above: therefore he that delivered me unto you has THE GREATER SIN". Apparently Jesus didn't think that all sin is the same. Otherwise, how could he speak of one man having a GREATER SIN than another?

What does the word "mortal" actually mean? According to my dictionary, it means "leading to death". A "mortal" wound for example, is one that leads to the death of the wounded person. Keeping that in mind, consider the following passage:

"If any man sees his brother commit a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God shall give life to him who commited a sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I do not say he shall pray for this. All unrighteousness is sin, but there is a sin not unto death" (1 John 5:16-17)

Could this be any clearer? The Word of God says that all unrighteousness is sin, but not all sin is mortal (leading unto death)! It says there is such a thing as mortal sin, but also non-mortal sins; and, it says that non-mortal sins are easily forgiven, by a simple prayer. (The word "venial" means "easily forgiven".) Finally, it says that mortal sin cannot be forgiven by such a prayer - something more is required. That something is, of course, the blessed Sacrament of Reconciliation, or Confession, through which a person can be restored to grace, even after commiting a sin which leads to spiritual death - a mortal sin.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 20, 2003.

"I would like to know if mortal sins will be forgiven and if they too can be unforgiven under what circumstances or remedies, huh?"

-let me ask for a specific response by asking specific question(s) that I think I know the answers to:

Is Adultery a mortal sin?

Yes.

Is remarriage without a declaration of nullity from previous marriage irregardless of remaining chaste etc. one and the same as adultery?

Yes.

Can one repent yet remain in a sinful situation?

No.

As to communion -our Pope has stated that those in situations as described in my questions above should not receive communion and should be admonished -is this correct?

BIG YES!

My concluding question --is it safe to state that one who remarries as described above will go to hell UNLESS they 'divorce' the illegitimate spouse/adulterer and repent?

Yes?

OK -help me out here and correct any false perceptions I may hold.

Thank You.

Daniel

that contributors may

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 25, 2003.

Daniel wrote:

My concluding question --is it safe to state that one who remarries as described above will go to hell UNLESS they 'divorce' the illegitimate spouse/adulterer and repent? Ah! and in correcting/repenting his sin he produces a broken home for his children. Yes, this is wonderful. It would seem better to provide a nurturing environment for his children keeping both parents and burrying his sin behind him. Let him take this up with God and himself. If hell awaits, it awaits. In the meantime, let him raise his children as Christians. Let him provide the best family life he can. God will judge. Let the Church condemn.

I'll save a copy of this thread, so go ahead and delete it.

The final straw that broke the camel's back.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 25, 2003.

Is Adultery a mortal sin?

A: Adultery is an objectively grave moral evil. It therefore would be mortal sin IF and ONLY IF the other criteria for mortal sin are satisfied as well.

Is remarriage without a declaration of nullity from previous marriage irregardless of remaining chaste etc. one and the same as adultery?

A: Objectively, yes. But objective evil is only one of three essential criteria for mortal sin.

Can one repent yet remain in a sinful situation?

A: One cannot repent perfectly and remain in an objectively sinful situation. But repentance, like mortal sin, presupposes personal knowledge of the objective gravity of the act. And even partial repentence may mitigate personal culpability.

As to communion - our Pope has stated that those in situations as described in my questions above should not receive communion and should be admonished - is this correct?

A: Yes. Because of the public nature of such situations, and the probability of scandal, this is so. But that cannot be taken as a pronouncement of mortal sin on the part of the parties involved.

My concluding question --is it safe to state that one who remarries as described above will go to hell UNLESS they 'divorce' the illegitimate spouse/adulterer and repent?

A: No. It is safe to state that one who acts as you have described commits an act which is objectively grave, and that therefore he/she COULD be personally guilty of mortal sin IF the other essential requirements of mortal sin are present, in which case they COULD go to hell IF they are utterly unrepentent. Further, it is NEVER safe to judge that another person is guilty of mortal sin, or that another person will go to hell, since it is impossible to read the subjective criteria which must be met in order for mortal sin to occur.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

"Ah! and in correcting/repenting his sin he produces a broken home for his children."

Rod,

You are adding a gender and variable to my specific question?

I assume the gender of the sinner does not matter -however; the addition of children to the equation does.

At this point -my specific real case quandry has no children involved -does yours?

Paul,

Thank you for your answer -it adds what I was aware of AND still presents me the dilemma -How to advise/minister to another or others that are objectively in this situation -How can one save souls by sitting on the fence so to speak?

The "subjective criteria" is the slippery slope -a gray area of sorts whereas truth is only objective? I am trying to provide guidance to another in this type situation and it seems self interpretation of the "subjective criteria" is comparable to discerning truth via sola scripture...

I will have to continue to seek understanding on this issue -I am seeking clear unambiguous answer(s) where none may exist. OR where none are readily apparent?

-- Where I come from with this is that I feel that in this fleshly world of ever present temptations thrown at us by satan that God has provided clear guidance AND any gray areas may simply be of our own creation?

In my opinion, to minister truth to others and help others stay on path requires NOT relying on subjective criteria; consequently, ministry would not be possible in areas that are defined by subjective means -is that the way it is?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 25, 2003.

Dear Daniel,

The TRUTH is never subjective. "Adultery is objectively evil, always and in every circumstance" is a TRUTH which is objective and absolute. Whenever and wherever this statement is made, it is always absolutely and objectively TRUE, regardless of any subjective perceptions by the one who states it or the one who hears it stated. TRUTH is objective and absolute; but human perceptions, beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and decisions are not. Doctrinal truth is completely independent of any subjective criteria. It is true if everyone accepts it, and it is just as true if everyone rejects it. Moral culpability on the other hand necessarily does depend on subjective criteria. A moral decision is not a "truth". It is a personal response to the truth as personally perceived. Such a personal response is necessarily subjective in nature, and one person's culpability for commission of a given act may be far greater or far less than the culpability of another individual who commits an objectively identical act under objectively identical circumstances. There are seldom gray areas in stating doctrinal truth. But there usually are gray areas in establishing personal moral guilt. It takes great honesty to do this for ourselves, since our natural tendency is to excuse ourselves whenever and however possible. It is virtually impossible to do this with respect to someone else. We simply cannot be fully aware of the subjective aspects of another person's moral decisions, even though we CAN be absolutely sure of the objective moral gravity of another person's actions. So, in counseling another person, all we can really do is to state the objective truth, and offer whatever objective evidence exists to support that truth (reasons WHY such a course of action is objectively immoral). But, having done that, we have no control over what the person will decide to do, or what degree of personal culpability may be attached to his doing it. God alone knows that. Which is why God alone is the Judge.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

Paul,

I have rarely read a more articulate, cogent analysis of Church Doctrine than was explicated in this post of yours. Thank you *so* much for expressing so much *so* well -- and yet so *very* economically & elegantly.

I am happy to report that my friend, Andrew, is now affirmatively seeking the guidance of a local priest concerning whether, as a Lutheran, he may appropriately petition the Church for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to his ex-wife, who is an atheist.

But I am even *happier* to report that he has also recently obtained a copy of the Church's Catechism, which he has already read through in its entirety once, and which we discussed -- for *hours* -- tonight! I had not mentioned this before, but for motnhs I have been praying hard -- very, *very* hard -- to the Blessed Mother to open Andrew's heart to the Truth, as taught by our Holy Catholic Church.

Among the topics Andrew & I touched on for further discussion was the very one you addressed so eloquently in your post, Paul. I would therefore be *very* grateful if you would grant me permission to share it with Andrew, under whatever conditions you might require.

God bless,

-- Charlotte (charlotte6201964@hotmail.com), August 26, 2003.

Daniel wrote:

You are adding a gender and variable to my specific question?

Paul made it very clear. We first must determine if the mortal sin exists. If the people involved are man, woman, or child, the mortal sin still may exist regardless of those bystanders. I can't see how children would change the sin. I think it depends on the one culpable of the sin. But, when the person repents of his mortal sin and tears a family apart, the children will surely suffer. It just doesn't make sense. It sounds like one must committ a sin in order to correct the first sin. If this is the case, I would perfer to live with the first sin and pray that God will forgive me. Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control. So, we start over again.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2003.

Rod,

you present quite a dilemma...

The Church does teach that seperation/divorce is acceptable under the right condition(s) and that when the conditions are resolved that reconcilliation is necessary. This in and of ityself implies that 'breaking up" a home/family is acceptable... HOWEVER, these guidelines/teachings specifically only address the 'breaking up' of a valid home/family AND remain firm in the bond of valid marriage...

My question to you -what is the second sin you speak of and is it truly a sin?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 26, 2003.

My question to you -what is the second sin you speak of and is it truly a sin?

Sin #1--the first marriage outside of the Church.

Sin #2--the divorce of that marriage.

Sin #3--the second marriage outside of the Church.

Sin #4--the correction of all of the above sins would probably mean some kind of seperation from the second marriage, if the second marriage is considered to be "living in sin". This would bring a bad family life to the children of that second marriage, if father and mother are not in a valid marriage and must seperate.

The Church may determine what is valid or not, but let's say that all of the mentioned marriages are sinful, what happens to the children?

Should the couple continue in sin for the sake of raising their children?

Surely, the Church must have a solution to such a dilema.

Wouldn't it seem easier for the couple to denounce their denomination and simply convert to Catholicism in order to correct their sins? Except for one major problem....one of them was a Catholic until they married outside of the Church.

All those tiny puzzles...

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2003.