Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: conan@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mortal Sins?? Message-ID: Date: 19 Nov 89 19:50:04 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Math Dept., UC Berkeley Lines: 54 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [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