Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/32

 SIN

10

SIN

position of choosing between God and creature as ultimate ends that are opposed, but is in such a condition of mind that if the object to which he adheres were prohibited as contrary to his true hist end he would not adhere to it, but would prefer to keep friendship with God. An example may be had in human friendship. A friend will refrain from doing anything that of itself will tend directly to dissolve friendship while allowing himself at times to do what is displeasmg to his friends without destroying friendship.

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is set forth in Scripture. From St. John (I John, V, 16-17) it is clear there are some sins "unto death" and some sins not "unto death", i. e. mortal and venial. The classic text for the distinction of mortal and venial sin is that of St. Paul (I Cor., iii, 8-15), where he explains in detail the distinction between mortal and venial sin. "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it; because it shall be re\'ealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." By wood, hay, and stubble are signified venial sins (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. Ixxxix, a. 2) which, built on the foundation of a living faith in Christ, do not destroy charity, and from their very nature do not merit eternal but temporal punishment. "Just as", says St. Thomas, [wood, hay, and stubble] "are gathered together in a house and do not pertain to the substance of the edifice, so also venial sins are multiplied in man, the spiritual edifice remaining, and for these he suffers either the fire of temporal tribulations in this life, or of purgatory after this life and nevertheless obtains eternal salvation." (ibid.)

The suitableness of the division into wood, hay, and stubble is explained by St. Thomas (iv, dist. 21, Q. i, a. 2). Some venial sins are graver than others and less pardonable, and this difference is well signified by the difference in the inflammabil- ity of wood, hay, and stubble. That there is a dis- tinction between mortal and venial sins is of faith (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi and canons 23-25; Bess. XIV, de pcenit., c. v). This distinction is commonly rejected by all heretics ancient and modern. In the fourth century Jovinian asserted that all sins are equal in guilt and deserving of the same punishment (St. Aug., "Ep. 167", ii, n. 4); Pelagius (q. v.), that every sin deprives man of justice and therefore is mortal; Wyclif, that there is no warrant in Scripture for differentiating mortal from venial sin, and that the gravity of sin depends not on the quality of the action but on the decree of predestination or reprobation so that the worst crime of the predestined is infinitely less than the slightest fault of the reprobate; Hus, that all the actions of the vicious are mortal sins, while all the acta of the good are virtuous (Denz.-Bann., 642); Luther, that all sins of unbelievers are mortal and all sins of the regenerate, with the exception of infidelity, are venial; Calvin, like Wyclif, bases the difference between mortal sin and venial sin on predestination, but adds that a sin is venial because of the faith of the sinner. The twentieth among the condemned propositions of Baius reads: "There is no sin venial in its nature, but every sin merits eternal punishment" (Denz.-Bann., 1020). Hirscher in more recent times taught that all sins which are fully deliberate are mortal, thus denying the dis- tinction of sins by reason of their objects and making

the distinction rest on the imperfection of the act (Kleutgen, 2nd ed., II, 284, etc.).

Malice ofVeiiialSin. — The difference in the malice of mortal and venial sin consists in thi?: that mortal sin is contrary to the primary end of the eternal law, that it attacks the very substance of the law which commands that no created thing should be preferred to God as an end, or equalled to Him, while venial sin is only at variance with the law, not in contrar.v opposition to it, not attacking its substance. The substance of the law remaining, its perfect accomplishment is prevented by venial sin.

Condilions. — Venial sin is committed when the matter of the sin is light, even though the advertence of the intellect and consent of the will are full and deliberate, and when, even though the matter of the sin be grave, there is not full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will. A precept obliges suh grain when it has for its object an important end to be attained, and its transgression is prohibited under penalty of losing God's friendship. A precept obliges sub levi when it is not so directly imijosed.

Effects. — Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, or diminish it. It does not produce a macula, or stain, as does mortal sin, but it lessens the lustre of virtue — "In anima duplex est nitor, unus quiden habitualis, ex gratia sanctificante, alter actualis ex actibus virtutum, jamvero peccatum veniale impedit quidem fulgorem qui ex actibus virtutum oritur, non autem habitualem nitorem, quia non excludit nee minuit habitum charitr.tis" (I-II, Q. Ixxxix, a. 1). Frequent and deliberate venial sin le.ssens the fervour of charity, disposes to mortal sin (I-II, Q. Ixxxviii, a. 3), and hinders the reception of graces God would otherwise give. It displeases God (Apoc, ii, 4-5) and obliges the sinner to temporal punishment either in this life or in Purgatory. We cannot avoid all venial sin in this life. "Although the most just and holy occasion- ally during this life fall into some slight and daily sins, known as venial, they cease not on that account to be just" (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi). And canon xxiii says: "If any one declare that a man once justified cannot sin again, or that he can avoid for the rest of his life every sin, even venial, let him be anathema", but according to the common opinion we can avoid all such as are fully deliberate. Venial sin may coexist with mortal sin in those who are averted from God by mortal sin. This fact does not change its nature or intrinsic reparability, and the fact that it is not coexistent with charity is not the result of venial sin, but of mortal sin. It is per accidens, for an extrinsic reason, that venial sin in this case is irreparable, and is punished in hell. That venial sin may appear in its tnie nature as essentially different from mortal sin it is considered as de facto coexisting with charity (I Cor., iii, S-15). Venial sins do not need the grace of absolution. They can be remitted by prayer, contrition, fervent communion, and other pious works. Nevertheless it is laudable to confess them (Denn.-Bann.. 15.39).

V. Permission of Sin and Remedies. — Since it is of faith that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good it is difficult to account for sin in His creation. The existence of evil is the underlying problem in all theology, ^■arious explanations to account for its existence have been offered, differing according to the philosophical principles and religious tenets of their authors. .-Vny Catholic explanation must take into account the defined truths of the omnipo- tence, omniscience, and goodness of God; free will on the part of man; and the fact that suffering is the penalty of sin. t)f metai)hysical evil, the negation of a greater good, God is the cause inasmuch iis he has created Ijeings with limited forms. Of physical evil (malum poence) He is also the cause. Physical