garyf@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Gary Faulkner) (10/25/89)
I have a rather simple question, but first some (probably necessary) background. My wife and I have recently begun a travel towards an ever increasing personal relationship with our Lord. She having had been raised catholic and myself converting, and having decided that a return to the type of church and fellowship which the original Christians were forming would be beneficial, we have decided that the catholic church does not represent even the majority of our beliefs. (deep breath... sorry for the run-on sentence) Anyway, the change is much bigger for her than for me, and she has asked questions about why the catholic church teaches things, and for the most part I have been able to show a lack of true biblical support for those which we did not believe in. (Please, no flames here, for those christians who get the fellowship and spiritual growth they need from RC, I am truly thankful to God for your success; it just doesn't do that for us). The biggest question which she has asked that I did not know the answer to is about the (7?) mortal sins. Any RC's out there want to give some insight into what they are (neither one of us can even remember them), what is meant by mortal - does it imply that you cannot be forgiven these sins, even through the payment Christ made on the cross? We believe that as sinners we will always sin, and have sinned much in the past, but that through our faith, knowing the Lord died for us individually on Calvary, and our Love of the Lord, we have accepted the payment he made for those sins. Most of all, what is the biblical support for the concept of mortal sins? Thanks to anyone who can respond. Gary Faulkner National Center for Supercomputing Applications - University of Illinois Internet: garyf@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu ["R.C. teaching distinguishes between mortal and venial sin. The former are against the final end of the law, the love of God, and, being deliberate and grave, are worthy of eternal damnation. The latter, though serious, do not destroy the relationship with God." (Van Harvey, "A Handbook of Theological Terms") Both can be forgiven. However until you confess it and are forgiven (or desire to), a mortal sin leaves you in a far more serious situation than a venial sin. I'm reluctant to say anything more than this, since I'm sure the Catholics in this group will give you a better answer. I was reluctant to let this misunderstanding implied here go by without any comment, to avoid premature responses from the Protestants in the group. --clh]
cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Cathy Johnston) (10/27/89)
>From: garyf@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Gary Faulkner) >I have a rather simple question, ... [stuff deleted] >...about the (7?) mortal sins. Any RC's out there want >to give some insight into what they are (neither one of us can even >remember them), what is meant by mortal - does it imply that you cannot >be forgiven these sins, even through the payment Christ made on the >cross? ... I think here that you have three different concepts rather mashed together here. You say this is stuff your wife remembers from childhood religious instructions. I would call this an example of the "Richard Stans Syndrome" -- a grammer-school child who recites the pledge of allegiance each morning finally asks the question which has been bothering him for a while, "Just who is Richard Stans?" As in "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for Richard Stans..." Which is to say: some of the religion you learned in childhood is *not* the religion you learned in childhood! :-) The first concept is mortal sin, which our faithful moderator has already commented on... I'll only add one thought, and that is that I take the distinction between mortal and venial sin as generally practical rather than some deep theology (as opposed to discussions of sin itself, which *are* much deeper). Mortal sin or venial sin are basically technical terms for the concept that there's big sins and little sins and that, while little sins are sins, but they're not *big* sins. The second concept is the "seven deadly sins". According to "New Webster's Universal Encyclopedia": Pride, covetousness, lust, envy, gluttony, anger and sloth. The traditional Christian list was already established by the 6th century and during the middle ages representations of the Seven Deadly Sins were a common feature of art and literature. Since I can never remember these, any subtle literary or artistic allusion to them is going to go right over *my* head! The third concept I'm thinking might be involved here might not be what your wife is thinking of at all... When I first read your posting, up popped a memory of something I was told long ago by some religion teacher, and had filed in my "richard stans" file as something I had misheard, misunderstood, or the teacher was wrong. This concept is that the only sin which is not forgivable is a sin against the Holy Spirit. Since my understanding of RCC doctrine is that *no* sin is outside the forgiveness of God, I knew that that wasn't a correct understanding of whatever I had heard... But anyway, this did give me a clue as to what to look up in the "Catholic Home Encyclopedia" (which my parents have had around for about 30 years). The following is probably a quote from A Catholic Dictionary, ed. Donald Attwater, 1931, 1949: Sins Against the Holy Ghost 2.) Six sins generally enumerated by medieval theologians, which can be considered in a special way against the Holy Ghost... The six sins are: despair of salvation, presumption on God's mercy, attacking the accepted truths of the Church, envy of another's spiritual goodness, obstinency in sin, and final impenitence. These six sins harden the sinner against the help of the Holy Ghost and make repentance difficult. I see this as a statement about the process of repentance much more than a statement about sin. Certain sins are more difficult to repent of not because of their seriousness per se, but because of the way they interfere with our ability to respond to the Holy Spirit's action that would draw us to repentance. As I said before, my understanding of RCC doctrine is that God's love and forgivenes are both all-emcompassing and unconditional (at least that's what my confessor tells me! :-) ) We've got lots of legal mumbo-jumbo on church practice, sacrements, etc. that tends to obscure this point, but basically, that is the position. Hope this has been useful to somebody! God bless, Cathy Johnston aka: cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu [Note by the way that the distinction between mortal and venial sins is a specifically RC belief. Protestants consider any sin at all to merit eternal damnation, but recognize that the forgiveness we get from Christ covers them all. However the "sin against the Holy Ghost" is not specifically RC, though the specific listing of 6 such sins seems to be RC. The basic concept comes from the NT, e.g. Mark 3:29. Protestants have just as much trouble as Catholics figuring out what it is, and have generally come to the same conclusion: that if you want to be forgiven, this shows you haven't committed the unforgiveable sin. --clh]
jhpb@lancia.att.com (10/27/89)
The biggest question which she has asked that I did not know the
answer to is about the (7?) mortal sins. Any RC's out there want
to give some insight into what they are (neither one of us can even
remember them), what is meant by mortal - does it imply that you cannot
be forgiven these sins, even through the payment Christ made on the
cross? We believe that as sinners we will always sin, and have
sinned much in the past, but that through our faith, knowing the
Lord died for us individually on Calvary, and our Love of the
Lord, we have accepted the payment he made for those sins. Most of
all, what is the biblical support for the concept of mortal sins?
There isn't any sin that can't be forgiven, except the one that one is
not sorry for.
Catholic theologians divide sin into two kinds, mortal and venial. The
distinction was known to the Fathers of the Church (e.g., St. Augustine,
St. Jerome), by the late 4th century.
A possible New Testament reference to this distinction is as follows:
He who knows his brother is committing a sin that is not unto death,
shall ask, and shall give life to him who does not commit a sin unto
death. There is sin unto death; I do not mean that anyone should ask
as to that. All lawlessness is sin, and there is a sin unto death.
(I John 5:16-17)
Mortal sin is called mortal because it means spiritual death to the
soul, separation from God, its life, for all eternity. Mortal sins are
incompatible with one's salvation. Mortal sins have to be repented of
and forgiven if one is to save one's soul.
Venial sins are not incompatible with one's salvation. Venial sins *at
most* cause a short sojourn in Purgatory -- nothing at all, compared to
Hell.
Nobody can avoid all venial sins execpt by a special grace from God. A
human being is *very* holy when he gets to the point where he is
habitually avoiding *fully deliberate* venial sins. Venial sin is what
the New Testament (St. John? St. James?) was talking about when it said
that the just man falls seven times daily.
The danger of venial sin is that it leads to mortal sin. Venial sin
weakens one's soul, clouding the intellect and weakening the will's
ability to resist mortal sin.
The spectacular falls that one sometimes sees in public personalities
don't happen overnight. The people involved had some venial sin that
they were attached to, and did not try to root out. Perhaps they liked
flattery. Perhaps a temper that there was little effort to control.
For a sin to be mortal, 3 things are necessary:
- the act involved has to be something serious
- you have to do it fully deliberately
- you have to do it knowing what you're doing
If one of the above three things is not present, the sin is venial.
Examples of things that are typically one or the other (keep in mind
that you need all three things for a mortal sin):
mortal: murder; blasphemy; theft of large sums of money; perjury
venial: over-eating; face-saving lies
A good analogy to help understand this is human relationships. I can be
someone's friend, and still slip up every now and then. For example,
maybe I sometimes inadvertently say something that hurts my friend's
feelings. A friendship can survive that. But if I hurl insults at a
person whenever I see them, I can't be their friend.
That's the way it is with God. One can't be a murderer or fornicator or
what have you and reach Heaven. That kind of stuff has to be given up.
But if I every now and then neglect a few things because I have a little
spiritual laziness to which I am attached, God isn't going to condemn me
to Hell for it.
Saying that all sin is mortal leads to the extremes of either:
laxness -- Every sin deserves Hell, I can't possibly avoid every sin,
therefore I might as well give up.
rigorism -- Every sin deserves Hell, therefore I better darn sight stop
sinning.
It's fairly easy to avoid all mortal sins in one's life, especially if
one has access to the Sacraments on a regular basis. The venial sins
are where the difficulty comes in.
Joe Buehler
jhpb@lancia.ATT.COM
att!lancia!jhpbsmith_c@ncsatl.uucp (Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter) (10/30/89)
[In article <Oct.25.04.00.07.1989.23202@athos.rutgers.edu>, garyf@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Gary Faulkner) described a decision to move from the Catholic to Protestant church. --clh] I feel for you and your wife deeply. I left the Roman Catholic church not all that long ago myself. Hmm, this is not meant antagonistically, it's just an observation: When Protestants change churches, it's sometimes difficult, sometimes not, depending on the individual; I've known some Protestants who choose a denomination based on the location of the church/proximity to home, etc. For Catholics, it's almost always an extremely difficult decision. To change Protestant denominations is not at all the same as leaving the Church. Hmm, as a Catholic, I can say that I tend to regard the Catholic church as the Church and all the rest as varying denominations. In other words, the Catholic church isn't even a denomination: It's the original from which all other churches have splintered. I don't think Protestants look at it that way at all. At any rate, I was somewhat shocked when a Roman Catholic priest told me that, simply by virtue of being received into the Anglican Catholic Communion, I had effectively excommunicated myself. I'm still struggling with it. Anglican devotion to Mary, for example, is lukewarm at best. I'd like to say here that I'm fully aware this is a public forum and I have no problem saying that I'm still struggling with my faith. Heck, if I quite struggling with my faith, I'd be worried.... > The biggest question which she has asked that I did not know the > answer to is about the (7?) mortal sins. Any RC's out there want > to give some insight into what they are (neither one of us can even > remember them), what is meant by mortal - does it imply that you cannot > be forgiven these sins, even through the payment Christ made on the > cross? The terms mortal, grave, serious, deadly, basically all apply to the same concept; essentially, mortal/deadly has to do with the effects in the sinner WRT deprivation of friendship w/God, whereas grave/serious refers to how important the sin is, that is, how deeply does the sin offend God? Clearly, murder offends God more deeply than, say, telling a lie. I don't think the Church sees these as different kinds of sin; basically, it only recognizes two kinds of sin, mortal and venial. Mortal sin destroys sanctifying grace because of the sinner's deliberate and willful act of turning away from God. Venial sin is an offense against God that does not cause the loss of one's state of grace. With that out of the way, I'd like to say that official Church teaching sometimes differs from actual Church practice. I distinctly recall asking the Father in Confession the difference between the two, and he said, "Ahhh...." I could see him waving his hand through the confessional screen. "A sin is a sin is a sin. There's no mortal or venial about it." He went on to encourage me to speak my conscience. Now that's putting into practice what the Father says to you at the beginning of the Sacrament, "May the Lord be upon your lips and in your heart so that you may give a right and true Confession," if you can make out the words, they say it so fast....hee hee.... Biblically, I think Christ states specifically that the only sins which cannot be forgiven are "sins against the Spirit." I think these are rejections of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (which Paul lists in I Corinthians 12 and 13 and 14, or thereabouts, pretty well, I think), contempt for the gifts, etc. I think they also include pretty obvious things like deliberately rejecting God's salvation, presumption of God's mercy (Well, it's okay, I can do this sin, I can always repent for it later, that kind of thing). I think opposing the known truths of the faith is also here, since Paul speaks of the importance of the Scriptures to the faith, and we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Prophets. I think the Church would agree with the statement that there is no sin Christ will not forgive if truly repented. I hope I answered your question okay. I don't know what things you don't agree with. I have no real problem with the above. But, then, there may be a lot of really technical stuff I might not agree with if I knew about it. Heh. In trying to explain the Episcopal Church as Anglican Catholic to someone, I remarked that it has all seven sacraments (yes, I go to Confession in the Episcopal Church, the sanctity of Confession is still absolute, no difference here), and is basically Catholic without the Pope. My Roman Catholic friend laughed and said, "Most American Roman Catholics are Catholic without the Pope, anyway." I think she had a point. In my prayers, I sometimes ask God to forgive me for praying for things that I know I'd reject if granted. If God can forgive me for that, I'm convinced He can forgive me for anything. -- Standard Disclaimer: These are my soul opinions, heartfelt and passionately expressed. They do not reflect the opinions of National Computer Systems, whatever *they* might be.... Yours in Christ, SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER gatech!ncsatl!smith_c
barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (11/10/89)
In article <Oct.27.04.27.08.1989.20602@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@lancia.att.com writes: > > > mortal: murder; blasphemy; theft of large sums of money; perjury Skipping mass for even a week was considered mortal also. Has this changed? barry olson His flesh has no earthly father; His divinity has no divine mother.
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (11/14/89)
In article <Nov.10.02.54.51.1989.12356@athos.rutgers.edu> barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >> >> mortal: murder; blasphemy; theft of large sums of money; perjury > >Skipping mass for even a week was considered mortal also. >Has this changed? There is no current codex of mortal sins of which I am aware (JHPB might correct me on this.) To use a term familiar to Protestants in a Catholic sense, you could say that mortal sin removes the free grace of justification (until it is restored through the sacrament of Penance.) The sins Joe mentions are certainly choice candidates for mortal sin, but one cannot objectively say for sure in every case; this, of course, is a matter between the sinner and God. When there is any doubt, it should be confessed. I believe that missing Mass on Sunday had in the past been considered a mortal sin, but you can easily see that it is hardly in the same vein as murder and embezzlement. There has been a tendency in some Catholic circles to make a delineation between "venial" sins with varying degrees of seriousness--missing Mass might be "serious venial sin" in this parlance--and reserving the phrase "mortal sin" for actions which truly reflect a radical severing of one's relationship with God, given its implications. Just where this line is drawn reflects where on the Catholic political spectrum you fall. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (11/14/89)
[Joe Buehler listed mortal sins: mortal: murder; blasphemy; theft of large sums of money; perjury Barry Olson asked >Skipping mass for even a week was considered mortal also. >Has this changed? --clh] Careful here! Even in the days of "juridical" (i.e. law-oriented) theology, the nature of the sin depended on the intent underlying the action. Thus if you skipped mass because you over-slept or were just lazy, your actions would not be classified as a mortal sin. If, however, you skipped it _willfully_, that is your intent was to not go for some definite reason which involved the rejection of the Church's teaching, then it would be classifed as a grave or _mortal_ sin. However, this (in the long history of the Church) represented only one phase in Catholic moral theology. Currently, the Church still requires its members to go to mass weekly. Consistent failure to do so should be examined to see what it says about your relationship with God--it is still a question of intent. However, missing mass once is not something which needs to be fretted over. (My confessor would probably chide me for being overly scrupulous if I brought it up.) These distinctions are easy to blur over if there is too much emphasis on the "rules" and not enough on the "relationsip". Pastoral practice has often wavered towards one extreme or the other. Your question reflects one such time. I hope this helps. Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
jhpb@lancia.garage.att.com (11/15/89)
There is no current codex of mortal sins of which I am aware (JHPB might
correct me on this.) To use a term familiar to Protestants in a Catholic
sense, you could say that mortal sin removes the free grace of justification
(until it is restored through the sacrament of Penance.)
As far as I know, missing Mass on Sunday is still serious sin.
But not for the same reasons that, say, murder is. Murder is serious
because of its nature. Missing Mass is serious because the Church made
Mass attendance a serious obligation.
The source of some of these things is the code of canon law. If anyone
has a copy handy, please look it up. Mass attendance is probably in
there.
Catholic priests study moral theology as part of their seminary
training. They have to be able to understand what is sin and what is
not, and how serious different kinds of sin are, and what effects they
produce on souls, because they have to be able to hear confessions.
The sins Joe mentions are certainly choice candidates for mortal sin,
but one cannot objectively say for sure in every case; this, of course,
is a matter between the sinner and God. When there is any doubt, it
I was talking about the seriousness of the things themselves, in the
things I mentioned.
Some acts are morally always bad enough to be candidates for mortal sin.
For example, blasphemy.
A person who utters a blasphemy has done something which is materially a
mortal sin. Whether he is culpable for the action or not depends on two
other things:
1. whether he did it totally freely or not (full consent of the will)
2. whether he knew it was something serious (sufficient reflection)
Joe Buehlerjhpb@lancia.garage.att.com (11/15/89)
Careful here! Even in the days of "juridical" (i.e. law-oriented) theology,
the nature of the sin depended on the intent underlying the action. Thus
if you skipped mass because you over-slept or were just lazy, your actions
would not be classified as a mortal sin. If, however, you skipped it
_willfully_, that is your intent was to not go for some definite reason
which involved the rejection of the Church's teaching, then it would be
classifed as a grave or _mortal_ sin.
Oversleeping, of course, excuses, as long as it's not through your own
fault. Where there's no will, there's no sin.
But laziness I can't see as an excuse. I don't see how you can separate
it from a conscious decision to skip, in a matter that the Church
regards as a serious obligation.
I don't see rejection of the Church's teaching as playing a part in
this, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. We're talking about
disobedience here, not rejection of Church teaching, per se.
Comments?
Joe Buehlerdyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (11/17/89)
In article <Nov.15.04.27.59.1989.14041@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@lancia.garage.att.com writes: >Missing Mass is serious [sin] because the Church made Mass attendance >a serious obligation. >The source of some of these things is the code of canon law. If anyone >has a copy handy, please look it up. Mass attendance is probably in there. Anybody who discusses things regularly with JHPB should always carry a copy of canon law with them. I do; I wouldn't walk up to my workstation without it. "The Code of Canon Law: Text and Commentary, Study Edition", edited by Coriden, Green and Heintschel, Paulist Press, 1985 is an amazingly readable tome. I recommend it to anyone, Catholic or not, who would like to get the definitive lowdown on Church practices. Of course, this is not primarily a source of Catholic belief; rather it specifies the juridical aspects of western Catholicism: obligations of the clergy and laity, the proper form for the sacraments, and so forth. The pontifical commission with the responsibility for the revision of the Code explicitly stated that it is not for canon law to determine which sins are grave or not grave. This is properly outside the scope of the Code. I am quoting from the 1983 revision of Canon Law. I believe that JHPB would agree that it replaces the 1917 codex. Canon 1247 -- On Sundays and other holy days, the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body. Canon 1248 -- 1. The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day. 2. If because of a lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause, participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specifically recommended that the faithful take part in the liturgy of the word if it is celebrated in the parish church or another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally, or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families. I think very few confessors would presume that missing Mass on Sunday was, on the face of it, a mortal sin, though it is not a matter to dismiss lightly. The Church makes clear, both here and in the documents of Vatican II, that this is a serious obligation. As David said, if this were habitual and willful, it would indicate a problem with one's faith and in one's relationship with the Catholic community. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (11/17/89)
In article <Nov.15.04.28.16.1989.14086@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@lancia.garage.att.com writes: >Oversleeping, of course, excuses, as long as it's not through your own >fault. Where there's no will, there's no sin. > >But laziness I can't see as an excuse. I don't see how you can separate >it from a conscious decision to skip, in a matter that the Church >regards as a serious obligation. I don't want to get into theological hairsplitting--looking at the trees its too easy to lose sight of the forest. However, I was using "laziness" loosely to indicate that the person skipping mass (me, for example) has not given serious consideration to the nature of the act. In that case, the sin would not be as grave as if I said: "I'm not going to Church; the Pope can stuff it." This later example is what I meant by a rejection of Church teaching. Since the terminology is not crucial, we can call it disobedience. Yours In Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (11/17/89)
In article <Nov.15.04.28.16.1989.14086@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@lancia.garage.att.com writes: >> if you skipped mass because you over-slept or were just lazy, your actions >> would not be classified as a mortal sin. If, however, you skipped it >> _willfully_, that is your intent was to not go for some definite reason >> which involved the rejection of the Church's teaching, then it would be >> classifed as a grave or _mortal_ sin. > >...But laziness I can't see as an excuse. I don't see how you can separate >it from a conscious decision to skip, in a matter that the Church >regards as a serious obligation. >I don't see rejection of the Church's teaching as playing a part in >this, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. We're talking about >disobedience here, not rejection of Church teaching, per se. There seem to be (at least) two schools of thought here. One (represented by JHPB) emphasizes the objective act as primary. That is, if an act is seriously sinful, and this is known to the person, and the person nonetheless freely chooses to sin, then the action constitutes a mortal sin. I think Joe gives a good presentation of this above. The other school is echoed by David's statements, and prefers to emphasize that _mortal_ sin necessarily implies a willful rejection of, or turning away from, God. That is, a person not only commits an objectively serious sin, but freely chooses it in an exercise of fundamentally saying "No!" to God. Such fundamental acts are usually rare in faithful people of good will. In fact, with this definition, it's difficult to imagine most so-called "good Catholics" engaging in mortal sin, receiving penance and absolution, and falling again into mortal sin. That is, true mortal sin (and not serious, but ultimately venial, sin) is usually an extraordinary action. With this definition, you can see that a act of disobedience like missing Mass willfully on Sunday, while serious in itself, may not necessarily constitute mortal sin. Now, I wrote this last paragraph off the top of my head, but I think it accurately represents the model of mortal sin which was presented to me in my religious education throughout my high school years ('69-'73). It seems to be the operative definition in most parishes I'm familiar with; admittedly not many, but I've not yet been surprised. Also, I think it's safe to say that the post-conciliar Church prefers to emphasize the positive aspects of participation by the faithful with a corresponding de-emphasis on the missing of Mass as a mortal sin. Also, obedience as an end in itself, while still a virtue and objectively no less important than before, might not be given quite the same emphasis these days. This is not an area where you're going to get a clear line drawn by everyone. Traditionalists like Joe may feel uncomfortable with this state of affairs. I don't feel the same way, but I can certainly see where he's coming from. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
conan@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (11/20/89)
[Excerpt from a discussion between David Cruz-Uribe and Joe Buehler deleted.] >There seem to be (at least) two schools of thought here. One (represented >by JHPB) emphasizes the objective act as primary. That is, if an act is >seriously sinful, and this is known to the person, and the person nonetheless >freely chooses to sin, then the action constitutes a mortal sin. I think >Joe gives a good presentation of this above. > >The other school is echoed by David's statements, and prefers to emphasize >that _mortal_ sin necessarily implies a willful rejection of, or turning away >from, God. That is, a person not only commits an objectively serious sin, >but freely chooses it in an exercise of fundamentally saying "No!" to God. >Such fundamental acts are usually rare in faithful people of good will. [Material deleted] >Also, I think it's safe to say that the post-conciliar Church prefers >to emphasize the positive aspects of participation by the faithful >with a corresponding de-emphasis on the missing of Mass as a mortal >sin. Also, obedience as an end in itself, while still a virtue and >objectively no less important than before, might not be given quite >the same emphasis these days. This summary by Steve is quite good. However, after reflection, I want to clarify my remarks slightly, as my first posting was aimed at what appeared to be a flippant comment about Catholic discipline. While the above statement about mortal sin being rare is correct, I think the danger in it is that it isolates mortal sin. No practicing christian wakes up one morning and says: "I'm going to reject God, and embrace Satan and all his works today!" (At least I hope not. :-)) Venial sins, such as skipping mass out of laziness, I think are correctly classified as not being mortal sins. However, they _may_ reflect a hardening of the will, a turning from God into oneself. These, if left unchecked, may lead the soul _gradually_ into a state of rejecting God, without the person being _fully_ concious of the process. So the difference in the two moral schools (as I see them) is just the result of different focus. The older school focuses on actions/symptoms, while the newer school focuses more heavily on intentions. Both approaches have their difficulties. The old school can descend into legalism ("See, I didn't break any of the rules, so I'm a good Catholic") while the new school is prone to subjectivism ("Well, I broke the rules, but my intentions were good"). Personally, when examining my conscience, I try to do both: I look for specific things I've done, and then try to discern an underlying connection. Unfortunately, I'm not terribly successful. :-) Joe, do you think I've summarized your position accurately? Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO