Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:
Italian
English
Spanish
Portuguese
Dear Father Angelo,
I hope you are enjoying the beginning of this month dedicated to Mary with serenity. I am writing to ask you for some clarification regarding the degree of sinfulness of an action in relation to the distinction between an act directly contrary to charity and an act contrary to charity in the order of means. After analyzing the sinfulness attributed by Morality in some types of sins, it seemed to me that a sin can be serious only if it is directly contrary to charity and not in the order of means. In fact, taking as an example the case of the lie, which regardless of its effects is always contrary to its end (and therefore, as far as I understand, contrary to charity in the order of means), I have read that it is considered a mortal sin only when it causes serious harm to others, thus directly opposing charity. On the other hand, it is considered only venial when, while remaining contrary to its own purpose, it is only playful or officious and not harmful. Looking at other examples of serious sin against charity in the order of means, such as those serious of gluttony or those of lust, in addition to the alienation from the natural end of the act, we also find a direct violation of charity (against oneself in the throat and to others in lust).So my question is this: is it correct to say that a sin can be mortal only when in a direct way, and not in the order of means, it is opposed to charity? Thank you for your availability and I wish you and your conferres a joyful celebration for the impending anniversary of Our Lady of the Rosary.
Matteo
Dear Matteo,
1. Knowing that you are only 18, I greatly appreciate your aptitude for theological questions, which are not simply academic, but go to the bottom of our lives. A fundamental question that everyone should ask is this: what is mortal sin, what is not? Because mortal sin is what kills the life of intimate communion with God, the life of grace. As its final outcome, it has eternal death and that is hell. Anyone having to go on a trip is concerned with knowing in detail the road they have to take so as not to end up somewhere else.
2. It would be enough to trust what God says to know what is grave sin and what is not. Now God has said through Holy Scripture that some sins prevent one from entering the Kingdom of God. This is equivalent to saying that they are mortal sins. Here are, by way of example, two lists of sins that exclude from the Kingdom of God, “ Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). “Now, the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outburst of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, drinking bouts, orgies and things like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21).
3. But since God has given man intelligence, it is right and it is also necessary to ask ourselves what is the reason why certain sins exclude us from the Kingdom of God. And that is what you do with the question you have expressed. A great teacher who helps us solve this problem is St. Thomas Aquinas.
4. Here is what he says, “A sin is called mortal that takes away the spiritual life produced by charity, a virtue by virtue of which God dwells in us: therefore a sin is mortal by its genus which by itself, that is, by its nature, is incompatible with charity” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 35, 3). Again, “Since sin is an infirmity of the soul, a sin is said to be mortal by analogy with diseases, which are said to be mortal when they produce irreparable damage with the destruction of a vital principle. Now the principle of spiritual life is order to the ultimate end: this order which, once destroyed, cannot be repaired by an intrinsic principle, but only by divine virtue… On the other hand, the disorders relative to the means, with the exception of order to the ultimate end, are reparable. And they are called venial” (Summa Theologica, I-II, 88, 1)
5. What you have said, therefore, is in line with the thought of Saint Thomas. However, the simple statement “grave sin is only the one which goes directly against charity” could be a source of confusion and error. Because one can go against charity not only directly, but also indirectly. In fact, since charity is in itself the supernatural friendship with God, and since the friends have among themselves the same will and diswill, when something is done that is contrary to the will of the friend, altering or profaning what he has done with wonderful wisdom and love, friendship in fact cracks and breaks. Therefore, one can also sin gravely by going indirectly against charity.
6. But returning to the distinction made by Saint Thomas and taken up by you, the question that now arises is the following: what is the end and what are the means?
Looking at the Decalogue we can say that the first three precepts of the Decalogue directly concern God, who is the end. So sins against these precepts are always mortal.
7. Instead, the remaining seven precepts of the Decalogue concern the means. Now some means are in themselves evil, such as killing, committing impure acts, bearing false witness, stealing… Then these means can never become good with the excuse that the end is good. There can be subjectively venial sin because of the imperfection of the act. St. Thomas says, “But it must be noted for all sins that are mortal in their kind that they are not mortal except when they reach their perfection.” (II-II, 35, 3). To be clear, there is no mortal sin if there is only the initial motion, but then immediately we correct ourselves. There can also be venial sin because of the semblance of matter that there may be in these precepts, except for the fifth for the sixth, in which there is always grave matter.
8. Other means, on the other hand, are good in themselves, such as family affections, providing for one’s own needs with food, with clothes, attending to one’s own honor, to one’s own good name… Then there is venial sin when, for example, we eat too much or too little, when there is excessive attachment to the dress or when we do not keep the demeanor due respect to the sacred place, to people, when there is disordered attachment to one’s honor or to one’s good name. This is the proper area of venial sin. You bring yourself on good means. But there may be some disorder in their use.
9. Simply saying that mortal sin is that committed directly against charity could give rise to a confusion already made by some Jesuit theologians in the late 1600s when they said that mortal sin is only what you did directly against God. That if it is done on grave matter, but is not directly committed against God, although it is serious, it would not be deadly. This opinion was condemned by Alexander VIII on 24 August 1690 and was judged “scandalous, reckless, piarum aurium offensive et erronea” (scandalous, reckless, offensive to good feelings and erroneous). The two Jesuits retracted their mistakes.
10. This error was again condemned by John Paul II since from the 60s of the last century some re-proposed this error in other terminology. There would be mortal sin only when the fundamental option towards the good is removed, while there would be a grave sin, but not a mortal one when, while sinning in grave matter, the fundamental option is not removed. Then fornications, adultery, theft, which are never done directly against God, indeed we do not even think about it, would not be deadly but only serious. Which leads to say that, if they are not mortal, they are still in the kind of venials, although in a stronger or more serious way.
11. Here is what John Paul II said in the post-synodal exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, “During the synodal assembly, some fathers proposed a tripartite distinction between sins, which should be classified as venial, serious, and mortal. The tripartition could highlight the fact that among grave sins there is a gradation. But it is always true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin that destroys charity and sin that does not kill supernatural life: between life and death there is no middle ground. Therefore, grave sin is practically identified, in the doctrine and pastoral action of the Church, with mortal sin” (PM 17).
12. Therefore I would adjust your statement by saying that there is grave sin when one acts directly or indirectly against charity, by doing what is objectively contrary to God’s will. In this way we avoid possible misunderstandings from the outset.
I thank you for your good wishes on the occasion of the feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, proclaimed by the Dominican Saint Pius V, Queen of victories. She is the patroness of our Order.
With the wish that you too can achieve one victory after another with the stupendous and particularly powerful weapon of the Holy Rosary, I bless you and remember you in prayer.
Father Angelo