Obviously, this is not for regular people to deal with mortal or venial sin.
The reason why I said this; generally, one does not think whether it is sin or not. People commits sin because they like what they want to do. In their thinking it is beneficial to them.
Here is my proof. Did Eve ever consider if it is mortal or venial sin to eat if the forbidden fruit? No. What she was thinking was how good it is for food, that it is pleasing to the eyes that it will make her wise. Never it came to her mind whether it was venial or mortal.
She knew as well Adam knew they will die. Did that deterred them from eating. No. Knowing whether it is mortal or venial does not keep people from commiting sin.
Hence, the consideration whether mortal or venial is the for judge, the priest,the cannon lawyer to do; not for the regular people.
Expand the “loosing” to include people thinking something is permissible that’s not and you quickly see why it IS relevant for regular ppl. If they think fornication is fine, and no occasion for repentance or conversion, their eternal soul is in jeopardy—that sin unrepented is a mortal sin and will damn them without rectification.
“Venial” means pardonable in itself. Someone may not do the calculus on a given act, but if they think something triggers no need for repentance / confession and it’s objectively serious, again, their eternal soul is in jeopardy.
To process the distinction between these abstract concepts of mortal and venial in their practical relevance to everyday life is beyond the capacity and time for regular people to consider.
I can see the importance of it.
For most for people who had not been catechized, these will just go over their head. The focus on sin rather than on love of God and neighbor in my opinion is going against the how the world’s focus today is going. When all they think about us whst is good for them, without consideration of other persons.
People have an innate sense of what is wrong, but to dissect the sin if venial it mortal is too much work for regular people.
Yes, this is good for guardians of morality, a select group of people who have the time to analyze and meditate about it. How much more to try to understand what is a conscience?
“Innate sense of what’s wrong”… you must not realize that this is precisely NOT the case: people think abortion is fine. They think not worshipping God is fine. They think taking the Lord’s name in vain is fine. They think contraception is fine. They think divorce is fine. If none of these things trigger their “innate sense” of what is wrong, I think that means we live in a time where proper catechesis is precisely what’s necessary.
Look back of what you wrote, you did not mention these things you are now mentioning.
What you wrote was purely intangible concepts about three things, conscience, mortal and venial sins, No application of these, like what you are now saying.
I commented on your original post. not on your third reply to my comment. Truly you agree now with how abstract your post was. Now you are making it understandable in everyday life, that was not in your initial post. This third reply regular people can relate.
“Our conscience tells us that we think something in particular that we’ve done is wrong or right.
Say you (1) ate a bunch of junk food, or (2) ate animal meat, or (3) got drunk, or (4) microdosed LSD, or (5) married a guy as a guy, or (6) advocated for expanded access to abortion, or (7) used contraception to avoid having kids at a given time—in each of these scenarios, your conscience tells you that what you are doing is legitimate or illegitimate, right or wrong, and this is based on your personal understanding of morality.”
That’s very tangible. Those examples almost identically parallel what I just said in my previous comment.
Here’s what I set out to do: explain that while most ppl don’t think much about “conscience”, it’s actually the most significant concept in our modern Church today.
This is just like how in the time of Arius most people didn’t think about the humanity & divinity of Christ (which, btw, is far more abstract than conscience, mortal sin, and venial sin—all of which bears directly on every individual person’s salvation).
So the challenge is to introduce the concept, let ppl begin to grasp what it means and why most ppl are in error on it, and then reconcile it with what’s been said in recent years about the problems in the Church.
I use diagrams and tables to help people out. I have many references to relevant quotes from the most credible voices in our Church. All of this is corroborating my take—because when you have a novel take, you ought not throw that out if you can’t thoroughly substantiate it.
It was already a long post. If the only thing I said in this post was that ppls consciences can err, and we need to form our consciences, I’d be contributing nothing to the conversation. I’d be saying the same thing 100 other people say every other month in Catholic intellectual circles.
What I’m trying to forward is that the key detail about conscience is that it binds, but does not loose. It’s an only-lose operation in us. It’s the true heresy of our time. And we need to devote all our efforts to truly and faithfully learning the moral law so we can more properly love God & our neighbor.
It’s not a Q&A though, it’s an essay. The reader has to piece parts together themselves. Essays demand careful reading. It’s a different medium than a Socratic dialogue.
Thank you. There’s much here to think about.
Obviously, this is not for regular people to deal with mortal or venial sin.
The reason why I said this; generally, one does not think whether it is sin or not. People commits sin because they like what they want to do. In their thinking it is beneficial to them.
Here is my proof. Did Eve ever consider if it is mortal or venial sin to eat if the forbidden fruit? No. What she was thinking was how good it is for food, that it is pleasing to the eyes that it will make her wise. Never it came to her mind whether it was venial or mortal.
She knew as well Adam knew they will die. Did that deterred them from eating. No. Knowing whether it is mortal or venial does not keep people from commiting sin.
Hence, the consideration whether mortal or venial is the for judge, the priest,the cannon lawyer to do; not for the regular people.
Expand the “loosing” to include people thinking something is permissible that’s not and you quickly see why it IS relevant for regular ppl. If they think fornication is fine, and no occasion for repentance or conversion, their eternal soul is in jeopardy—that sin unrepented is a mortal sin and will damn them without rectification.
“Venial” means pardonable in itself. Someone may not do the calculus on a given act, but if they think something triggers no need for repentance / confession and it’s objectively serious, again, their eternal soul is in jeopardy.
Very relevant for normal people.
To process the distinction between these abstract concepts of mortal and venial in their practical relevance to everyday life is beyond the capacity and time for regular people to consider.
I can see the importance of it.
For most for people who had not been catechized, these will just go over their head. The focus on sin rather than on love of God and neighbor in my opinion is going against the how the world’s focus today is going. When all they think about us whst is good for them, without consideration of other persons.
People have an innate sense of what is wrong, but to dissect the sin if venial it mortal is too much work for regular people.
Yes, this is good for guardians of morality, a select group of people who have the time to analyze and meditate about it. How much more to try to understand what is a conscience?
“Innate sense of what’s wrong”… you must not realize that this is precisely NOT the case: people think abortion is fine. They think not worshipping God is fine. They think taking the Lord’s name in vain is fine. They think contraception is fine. They think divorce is fine. If none of these things trigger their “innate sense” of what is wrong, I think that means we live in a time where proper catechesis is precisely what’s necessary.
That would be my take.
Exactly.
Look back of what you wrote, you did not mention these things you are now mentioning.
What you wrote was purely intangible concepts about three things, conscience, mortal and venial sins, No application of these, like what you are now saying.
I commented on your original post. not on your third reply to my comment. Truly you agree now with how abstract your post was. Now you are making it understandable in everyday life, that was not in your initial post. This third reply regular people can relate.
From the second section: Conscience
“Our conscience tells us that we think something in particular that we’ve done is wrong or right.
Say you (1) ate a bunch of junk food, or (2) ate animal meat, or (3) got drunk, or (4) microdosed LSD, or (5) married a guy as a guy, or (6) advocated for expanded access to abortion, or (7) used contraception to avoid having kids at a given time—in each of these scenarios, your conscience tells you that what you are doing is legitimate or illegitimate, right or wrong, and this is based on your personal understanding of morality.”
That’s very tangible. Those examples almost identically parallel what I just said in my previous comment.
Here’s what I set out to do: explain that while most ppl don’t think much about “conscience”, it’s actually the most significant concept in our modern Church today.
This is just like how in the time of Arius most people didn’t think about the humanity & divinity of Christ (which, btw, is far more abstract than conscience, mortal sin, and venial sin—all of which bears directly on every individual person’s salvation).
So the challenge is to introduce the concept, let ppl begin to grasp what it means and why most ppl are in error on it, and then reconcile it with what’s been said in recent years about the problems in the Church.
I use diagrams and tables to help people out. I have many references to relevant quotes from the most credible voices in our Church. All of this is corroborating my take—because when you have a novel take, you ought not throw that out if you can’t thoroughly substantiate it.
It was already a long post. If the only thing I said in this post was that ppls consciences can err, and we need to form our consciences, I’d be contributing nothing to the conversation. I’d be saying the same thing 100 other people say every other month in Catholic intellectual circles.
What I’m trying to forward is that the key detail about conscience is that it binds, but does not loose. It’s an only-lose operation in us. It’s the true heresy of our time. And we need to devote all our efforts to truly and faithfully learning the moral law so we can more properly love God & our neighbor.
It’s not a Q&A though, it’s an essay. The reader has to piece parts together themselves. Essays demand careful reading. It’s a different medium than a Socratic dialogue.