Case XX: The Number of Sins Caused by Envy

Mary and Anna had conceived a mortal grudge for each other. It grew out of envy and jealousy. For a long time they kept it in check, as far as any public outward manifestation of it was concerned. However, one Sunday, as they were both leaving the church, they met, and immediately began to abuse and vilify each other, before all the people, and finally came to blows. Of course it caused a scandal and everyone was greatly shocked.

How many sins did these two women commit, both as regards the kind and the number of the sins?

Answer. There can be no doubt but that these two women sinned against the love they owed each other. Envy and jealousy are sins against charity. Charity is a virtue that disposes one to love one's neighbor, to wish one's neighbor well, and to do him good. Envy is a feeling or sentiment of grief or discontent and uneasiness at the sight of another's excellence or good fortune, coupled with a certain degree of hatred or dislike (odium inimicitiae) for such a person, and a desire to possess equal advantages. Envy and jealousy are directly opposed to charity and are therefore sinful. Now since Mary and Anna both harbored, for a long time, feelings of envy and jealousy, these sins of envy and jealousy must have been multiplied many times, since they were peccata mere interna, or sins of the heart, or of the will. These internal sins, or sins of the heart, are said to be multiplied as often as the evil feeling or desire is expressly or tacitly retracted and again revived and consented to. In fact, it may be said that internal sins, or sins of the heart are multiplied as often as they are physically interrupted, no matter even if the interruption be involuntary. In this way sins of the heart are multiplied as often as they are physically interrupted, no matter from what cause, so that there will be as many sins numerically, as there are interruptions. An exception is made for the case where many acts are prompted by the same burst of passion; in that case the several actions, following quickly upon one another, are united or rather unified by the one cause from which they proceed, namely the same outburst of passion. But now, ordinarily speaking, no outburst of passion lasts more than two or three hours at most, and therefore Mary and Anna must have multiplied their internal sins of envy and jealousy, at least several times a day. In practice, however, it will suffice if these women indicate the length of time that they indulged these sinful feelings against one another. For instance, it will be sufficient if they confess to having harbored sentiments of envy or hatred or jealousy for one month, or two months, etc. For by so doing, they make it sufficiently clear to the confessor, just about what is the number of these sins that they committed. Besides, it would scarcely be possible to be more exact or explicit in matters of this kind. The Council of Trent says that mortal sins must be confessed, according to kind and number, prout sunt in conscientia, at the time of confession. It is the conscience of the sinner that eventually must number his sins or keep count of them. But, usually, the sinner is ignorant of those theological distinctions, regarding number and kind and the method of distinguishing them. These rules must be applied to the sinner according to his special circumstances. We take it for granted that these two women had no intention from the beginning of making any external demonstration or of coming to blows. Therefore as often as they desisted from these thoughts of envy and hatred, they multiplied these sins numerically. Did they intend from the beginning to come to blows, an interval of time would be required to multiply actus internos cum proposito externam actionem ponendi.

So much for the internal sins of the heart that Mary and Anna committed by envy and jealousy. Let us take up the sins of act, or the external sins that Mary and Anna committed on that Sunday morning, when with much mutual abuse and vilification and many imprecations, they engaged in a physical encounter before the whole congregation. How many different sins did they commit on this occasion? Sins, of course, of action, external sins. Were they many in number and many in kind?

They seem to have committed only one sin against charity, by anger. St. Thomas says that sins of the tongue are multiplied according to kind or species, not by reason of the things that are said, but rather by reason of the purpose for which they are said.

"Species peccati oris magis attenditur ex fine, quam ex materiali objecto." (2-2 q. 74, a. 2.)

In the case before us, the abuse and imprecations and maledic tions, all proceed from the same outburst of passion, from the same explosion of anger and hatred, and are all meant, not as so many separate and formal evils which they mutually call down upon one another's head, but rather as evil in general which they wish one another, not attending to the particular kinds of evil that their words imply, and they constitute one act along with the physical act of beating one another, which is the principal act. Whilst, therefore, physically speaking, all these different acts of abuse and contumely and physical encounter, constitute separate physical acts; nevertheless, morally taken, they form but one act, containing but one kind of moral malice. If these women belong to the rank and file of the community, there will be no question of loss of honor or defamation, because the spectators do not believe what these hurl at one another, knowing that it is said in the heat of passion, etc.

But did they not give grave scandal to the community by such conduct on Sunday, in the sight of the whole parish?

If there were non-Catholics in the community, who witnessed this scene, or who learned of it immediately, with all its disgusting details, of course there would be given serious scandal. For such conduct necessarily leads the non-Catholic to despise the Catholic religion. But if there were only Catholics present, or in the community, then we should have to consider whether they would be led into sin by such a scene. Scandal is not necessarily given because a sin is committed before others. A sin committed before others is scandalous only when it will very probably lead the others into sin also. The sinful action may shock others or outrage their feelings, but as long as it does not lead them into sin, it is not scandalous. Now a community of Catholics might witness such a scene as the above, and never be led into any sin by it. In that case no scandal is given. They might feel bad about it and shocked and humiliated, but they would not be scandalized.

To sum up therefore, Mary and Anna, by harboring ill will and envy and hatred toward one another, committed a grave sin against charity, and they multiplied their sin several times daily, all during the time that they entertained the grudge for one another.

Secondly, when they came to blows, they committed a new sin against charity, with which the abusive language and epithets, that immediately preceeded it, constitute one moral act. This they will sufficiently confess by saying that they quarreled and came to blows.

The various evils that they wished each other, did not constitue a new kind of sin, nor was there any defamation of character or grave scandal.