I was unaware that modern Roman Catholics (unlike Augustine and the Orthodox) do not seek forgiveness of involuntary sins.That is not precisely the case, but the misunderstanding may have been a failure on my part to communicate more clearly. In the post of mine that is in question, I was addressing the specific circumstances of a hypothetical situation that Turretinfan had proposed. I was not intending to present details as to the different categories of sin that Catholics recognize.
That's a very serious problem (if it is true) with Roman Catholic theology.
The Church distinguishes between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sin is that which, if committed, severs one from Christ:
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him...Contrasted with this are venial sins:
Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation...
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments...
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. ...
Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. ...
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God (CCC 1855-1861 passim).
One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. ...We actually ought to confess venial sins as well, as St. Augustine notes in the quotation above; also:
Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."
[Quoting St. Augustine:] While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession (CCC 1862-1863 passim).
Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father's mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful (CCC 1458).But I am somewhat at a loss to know which things Turretinfan considers to be "involuntary sins" in the context of the post in question, such that he would be surprised by what I said.
It seems rather obvious (well, to me anyway; I don't mean to be flip or critical: I am just perplexed by his reaction) that one couldn't be held responsible for a physical inability to do some positive good: A quadriplegic cannot be expected to plunge into the swimming pool to save a drowning child. By the same token, a genuinely deceived man can hardly be held to blame for being unaware that his "priest" is not really a priest. Consequently the fact that he has not actually received the sacraments that he should ordinarily receive can hardly be reckoned blameworthy.
If, on the other hand, Turretinfan would consider truly wicked the case of a man who (in genuine ignorance) sleeps with a woman while falsely believing that she is his wife: again, I don't see how this would constitute a mortal sin. Materially the act would be construed as adultery (i.e., relations with some other than one's rightful spouse), but in consideration of the circumstances it is not formally so because the action lacked consent and knowledge. Perhaps a slightly similar analogy would be that of the altar built by the Transjordan tribes, which materially was a violation of the Law, but in consideration of the circumstances - namely, the intent of the altar's builders - was not reckoned to have been a sinful act (Josh. 22:10ff). So: it's not merely the matter of the action (sleeping with someone other than one's rightful spouse/building an altar) but also (among other things) the intent (sleeping with one's spouse/erecting a witness) that determines the sinfulness of the act.
No comments:
Post a Comment