Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mortal Sins?? Message-ID: Date: 17 Nov 89 09:36:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Lines: 53 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article 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