Section — Koch–Preuss
Section 2: Mortal and Venial Sins
- IMPORTANCE OF THE DISTINCTION. —The distinction between mortal and venial sins is of great practical importance, especially for the tribunal of Penance, where the sinner is obliged to state the kind and number of his mortal transgressions, which constitute materia necessaria for the validity of the Sacrament. Venial sins, on the other hand, are materia libera, i. e., they need not be confessed, though to confess them is useful and advisable.1
1 Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., cap. 5 and can. 7; Sess. VI, cap. 11.
The teaching of the Church with regard to the distinction between mortal and venial sins is clear and definite. Nevertheless, the scientific demonstration of this doctrine is one of the most difficult problems of Moral Theology and has given rise to many heated controversies (e. g., Kleutgen vs. Hirscher; Frick vs. Linsenmann; Pesch vs. Schell, etc.)
- PROOF FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, AND REASON. —The distinction between mortal and venial sins has a solid basis in Sacred Scripture and ecclesiastical Tradition.
- Sacred Scripture distinguishes between sins of greater or less gravity in such passages as: "Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire;”2 in the parables of the moat and the beam,3 of the king who took account of his servants,4 in the similitude of the blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel,5 and so forth. The Bible moreover expressly mentions sins that are "worthy of death," 6 the doers of which "shall not possess the kingdom of God;”7 sins “that beget death,”8 and others that are regularly committed by all men, even the just.9 Comparing the texts one cannot but see that there is a difference, not only of quantity or degree, but likewise of quality or essence, between different sins (differentia in ipsa ratione peccati). Mortal sin robs man of sanctifying grace, destroys the supernatural life of the soul, and entails eternal damnation; whereas venial sin merely weakens grace and diminishes that love which is poured out in the heart by the Holy Ghost.
2 Matth. V, 22. Cfr. Matth. X, 15; XI, 22; XVI, 10; John XIX, 11.
3 Matth. VII, 3 sqq.
4 Matth. XVIII, 23 sqq.
6 Rom. I, 32; cfr. Ex. XXXII, 30 sq.; 1 John V, 16. T 1 Cor. VI, 9 sq.; Gal. V, 19 sqq.
8 Jas. I, 13 sqq.
We have purposely refrained from citing in support of our thesis the oft-quoted text, "A just man shall fall seven times and shall rise again;" for, as St. Augustine pointed out many centuries ago, there is question here not of sins but of misfortunes.10
10 Prov. XXIV, 16.—Cfr. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XI, c. 31: "The just man falls seven times and rises again, that is, however often he falls, he will not perish. He intended this to be understood not of iniquities, but of tribulations leading to humility." (Migne, P. L., XLI, 345). Cfr. Enarr. in Ps., 118, s. 31, n. 4 (P. L., XXXVII, 1529). —J. V. Bainvel, Les Contresens Bibliques des Prédicateurs, 2nd ed., Paris 1906, pp. 102 sq.
In I John V, 16 "sin unto death" is probably not ordinary mortal sin but that which is technically known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.11
11 Cfr. A, Zahn, De Notione Peccall, Halle 1872, pp. 13, 28, 51.
The scriptural locus classicus for our thesis is 1 Cor. III, 8 sqq., in which the difference between mortal and venial sin is developed very graphically and with a deep insight into human nature. This text was made much of by the Scholastics.12
12 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 89, art. 2; Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, p. 530.
- Ecclesiastical Tradition furnishes a long and uninterrupted series of testimonies in support of the distinction with which we are dealing.
The ancient penitential discipline distinguished between unpardonable and pardonable sins,13 and among the latter classed some as more grievous than others.
13 Matth. XII, 31 sq.; John XX, 22 sq.
St. Augustine draws a sharp line between "magna crimina" and unavoidable " quotidiana peccata" which, he says, are wiped out by the Lord's Prayer.14
The Catholic Church has constantly insisted on this important distinction and defended it against heretics.15
14 St. Augustine, Contra Iul., IT. c. 10, n. 33: "While laboring in this warfare with concupiscence, so long as human life upon earth is a temptation, we are not therefore without sin because that which is called sin in this sense works in our members against the law of the mind, even when we do not consent to unlawful things; but in those matters in which we are overcome by that rebel, though not mortally but nevertheless venially, we contract that for which we say daily: Forgive us our debts." (Migne, P. L., XLIV, 696).—Enchir., c. 71: "For the daily brief and light sins without which this life is not lived, the daily prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction. This prayer entirely blots out these least and daily sins." (P. L., XL, 265).—Tr. in loann., 26, n. ii: "Though sins are daily, let them not be deadly." (P. L., XXXV, 1611).—De Symb., c. 7, n. 15: "I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but there are venial sins without which this life is not lived. Baptism was instituted for all sins; prayer was instituted for light sins, without which we cannot exist. What does prayer contain? We are washed once in baptism; we are washed daily in prayer. But do not commit those sins for which you must be separated from the body of Christ—may this be far from you. Those whom you see doing penance committed crimes, either adulteries or other monstrous deeds; for these they do penance. For if their sins were light, the daily prayer would suffice to blot them out." (P. L., XL, 636).— Serm., 58, c. 7, n. 8: "You cannot live on this earth without debts. But one class consists of those great crimes which it is good for you to have forgiven in baptism and from which you ought always to remain aloof; another consists of daily sins, without which man cannot live here and for which daily prayer is necessary." (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 397).—With regard to venial or daily sins, St. Augustine calls the Lord's Prayer "quotidiana nostra mundatio" (De Nupt, et Coniug., I, c. 33, n. 38), "quotidiana mundatio sanctae orationis" (Serm., 56, c. 8, n. 12), and "quasi quotidianus baptismus nosier" (Serm., 213, c. 8). —On the Patristic literature regarding this question see Gerigk, Wesen und Voraussetzungen der Todsunde, Breslau 1903, pp. I? sqq.
15 Cfr. Conc. Milev. II, can. 6-8: "The saints say in the Lord’s Prayer, not only humbly but also truthfully: Forgive us our debts." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 106 sqq.). —Among the condemned propositions of Baius is the following (n. 20): "No sin is venial by its nature, but every sin deserves eternal punishment." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1020). — Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. n; c. 15; can. 23 and 27; Sess. VII, De Bapt., can. 10. —On Luther's teaching that all sins are by nature mortal, see H. Denifle, Luther und Luthertum, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 501 sqq.
- Everyday experience as well as the common sense of mankind and enlightened reason confirm the distinction between mortal and venial sins. As there is a state of spiritual death and moral infirmity, so there are external and internal acts that produce death and infirmity; and as there is a moral order which can be either grievously or slightly violated, so there are grievous and slight offenses against that order.16 "Could anything be more absurd or foolish," asks St. Augustine, "than to consider one who has indulged in immoderate hilarity guilty of as great a sin as the wretch who has brought ruin upon his native land?" 17 "If two acts are equal because they are both offenses," he continues, "then mice and elephants are equal because they are both animals, and flies and eagles are equal because they can fly through the air." 18 "Not only Scripture, but mankind in general," says a recent moralist, "recognize the fact that there are sins which by their nature do not involve a real lapse from morality, and which do not render the agent bad and worthless, but are committed even by just and pious men.
16 Cfr. Prov. VI, 30 sqq. —St. Jerome, Adv. lovin., II, c. 30: "There are light sins and grave sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe a farthing. We shall indeed be held guilty for an idle word and for adultery, but it is not the same thing to blush and to be tortured, to be ashamed and to be tormented for a long time." (Migne, P. L., XXIII, 327)-
17 St. Augustine, Epist., 104 (a/. 254), c. 4, n. 13: "What more absurd or more insane thing can be said than that one who has sometimes laughed too immoderately and one who has savagely set his country on fire should be judged to have sinned equally?"
18 Ibid., n. 14: "Or if they are equal because both are offenses, mice and elephants will be equal because both are animals, and flies and eagles because both are winged creatures." (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 394). —Cfr. Horace's Satires, I, 3, 96 sqq.: "Those who have decided that sins are nearly equal are at a loss when the truth is reached: feeling, custom, and usefulness itself, almost the mother of justice and equity, oppose them."
... That there is an essential difference between an offense against courtesy and battery and assault for the purpose of robbery, between a falsehood told in jest and a slander affecting a man's honor, every reasonable person perceives." 19 The truth expressed by St. James.that "in many things we all offend," 20 was perceived long before the Apostle's day by Thucydides 21 and others.
19 J. Mausbach, Die kath. Moral, 2nd ed., p. 110; English translation by Buchanan, pp. 259 sq. We have modified the English version somewhat in order to render the sense of the original more accurately.
20 Jas. III, 2: "For in many things we all stumble."
21 Hist., III, 45: "All are naturally inclined to sin both privately and publicly." —Cfr. Seneca, De Clement., I, 6: "We all sin, some more gravely, others more lightly."
- SPECULATIVE ARGUMENT. —To demonstrate the distinction between mortal and venial sin speculatively was first attempted by the Schoolmen, especially by SS. Thomas 22 and Bonaventure,23 who emphasize the fact that sin is essentially a turning away from God, due to a wrong tendency of the will. a) "When," says St. Thomas (l. c.), "the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last end, God, to whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin; but when the disorder stops short of turning away from God, the sin is venial. For as in animal bodies the disorder of death, which results from the destruction of the principle of life, is irreparable in nature, whereas the disorder of sickness can be repaired, because the vital principle is preserved, so it is in matters concerning the soul. For in speculative matters he who errs in first principles is beyond the reach of persuasion, whereas one who errs but retains the first principles, may be brought back to the truth by the aid of those same principles. And so in matters of conduct, he who by sinning turns away from his last end, suffers a fall that is, so far as the nature of the sin goes, beyond repair, and exposes himself to eternal punishment. But he whose sin stops short of turning away from God, is under a disorder that by the very nature of the sin admits of repair; and therefore he is said to sin venially, because he does not sin so as to deserve never-ending punishment."
22 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 72, art. 5: "The difference between venial and mortal sin follows the diversity of disorder which completes the nature of sin. Disorder is twofold: one by removal of the principle of order; the other in which, even while the principle of order is preserved, disorder occurs concerning things that follow the principle. Thus in an animal body a disorder of its constitution sometimes proceeds to the destruction of the vital principle, and this is death; but sometimes, while the principle of life is preserved, a certain disorder occurs in the humors, and then there is sickness. Now the principle of the whole order in morals is the last end, which holds the same place in practical matters as an indemonstrable principle in speculative matters. Hence, when the soul is disordered by sin to the point of turning away from the last end, namely God, to whom it is united through charity, then there is mortal sin; but when disorder occurs short of turning away from God, then there is venial sin. For just as in bodies the disorder of death, which occurs through removal of the principle of life, is naturally irreparable, whereas the disorder of sickness can be repaired because the principle of life is preserved, so it is in matters pertaining to the soul."
23 St. Bonaventure, Brevil., P. V, c. 8: "Since sin signifies a withdrawal of the will from the first principle, insofar as the will is naturally meant to be acted upon by Him, according to Him, and for His sake, every sin is a disorder of the mind or will, concerning which virtue and vice naturally exist. Actual sin, therefore, is an actual disorder of the will. Now this disorder is either so great that it destroys the order of justice, and in this way it is called mortal sin, because it is apt to take away life by separating the soul from God, through whom the just soul is given life. Or it is so slight that it does not destroy that order, but only disturbs it in some respect, and then it is called venial sin, because we can quickly obtain pardon for it, inasmuch as grace is not taken away through it nor does man incur divine enmity."
Hence the customary definition: "A mortal sin is a turning away (aversio) from God and a turning to (conversio) creatures with a change of object/' When the (final) object remains unchanged, there is only venial sin.24 Mortal sin, therefore, is a complete turning from God to the creature, whereby the creature becomes man's last end and the object of his affection. Such an act necessarily destroys the proper relation between God and man, and consequently robs the soul of supernatural life. Man is ordained towards his last end by charity, and whatever runs counter to charity (conceived either as the love of God or the love of one's fellow-men for God's sake) is mortally sinful. All such offenses are mortal sins according to their species (peccata mortalia ex suo genere). When the will is directed towards an object that is not contrary to charity, though it contain within itself some disorder (inordinatio quaedam), the sin committed is venial according to its species (peccatum veniale ex suo genere). Since, however, human acts receive their specification not only from their objects, but likewise from the end or purpose of the agent, a sin which is by nature venial, so far as its object is concerned, may become mortal in respect of the person who commits it, either because he inordinately seeks his last end in that object, or because he directs the object towards an end which is by nature mortally sinful;—as when one employs a useless word for the commission of a grievous crime. Similarly, a sin which is by nature mortal may become subjectively venial if the act remains incomplete, because there is no full advertence and consent; —as when one is tempted against the faith.
24 "Mortal sin is a turning away from God and a turning toward creatures with a change of center; but where the center is not changed, venial sin is present." (St. Thomas, l. c.)
To be mortal, therefore, a sin need not be committed "with uplifted hand against God," as Schell was accused of having taught, i. e., it need not be inspired by hatred and malice or involve formal rebellion against the Almighty. Nor need it be an act of obstinate and impenitent opposition to divine truth and grace. The Church would not have drawn up a long list of mortal sins 25 if she believed that there is but one mortal sin, namely, rebellion or obstinate resistance to the will of God.26
25 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 15; Prop, damnat. ab Alexandra VII., n. 23; sub Innocent. XI., 43, 44, 47, 49, 51 sq. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1123, 1193 sq., 1197, 1201 sq.)
26 Cfr. F. A. Gopfert, Moraltheologie, 6th ed., Vol. I, p. 219. —It is but just to add that Dr. Schell protested against the construction put upon his teaching by his opponents. "I have never denied," he says, "that every wilful transgression of the divine law in an important matter is a mortal sin. On the contrary, I accept this definition: only it falls short of determining what is important or unimportant in each case.... Were I asked to define the nature of mortal sin, I should say it was a voluntary or wilful transgression of a divine law in an important matter." (H. Schell, Kleinere Schriften, edited by K. Hennemann, Paderborn 1908, pp. 580, 587.)
b) The fact that every sin implies a disturbance of the moral order does not suffice to establish an essential distinction between mortal and venial sins. For this distinction is not (or, at least, not entirely) based on the objective consequences of sin (materia gravis et levis), i. e., the greater or less degree in which the moral order is disturbed, but primarily on the subjective tendency of the will. "The external object /' says a modern theologian, "is merely the proximate aim and motive. The ultimate cause of sin is the ego, the gratification of self-love, that inordinate seeking of one's own interest which is directly opposed to the love of God. This is true of all sins, even of those whose object lies outside the sinner's own person (infidelity, despair, presumption)."27
27 H. Gerigk, Wesen und Voraussetzungen der Todsünde, p. 116. —Cfr. Cicero, Parad., Ill, i: "You say that the matter is small; but the fault is great. For sins are not to be measured by the outcome of things, but by the vices of men."
Hence, broadly speaking, it may be said that whatever is done out of malice is mortally sinful, whereas that which has infirmity for its motive is merely a venial sin, though, strictly speaking, there are sins of malice that are venial and sins of infirmity that are mortal. No man is able to fathom the secret motives of his fellow-men, and consequently God alone can tell with absolute certainty how much malice has gone into any sin.28
28 Cfr. Jer. XVII, 10; 1 Cor. IV, 4; 2 Thess. II, 7; Deut. XVII, 8.
St. Augustine says: "Which sins are venial and which are mortal can be ascertained only from Sacred Scripture, not from human wisdom." 29 And St. Thomas: "It is perilous to decide as to the grievous character of a sin unless we have a positive teaching to go by." 30 St. Raymond of Pennafort, whom the Church honors as "the eminent minister of the Sacrament of Penance," advises confessors to go slow in deciding any sin to be grievous, lest they discourage their penitents.31
29 Enchiridion, c. 78: "Which sins are light and which are grave must be weighed, not by human, but by divine judgment." (Migne, P. L., XL, 269).— Cfr. ibid., c. 79: "There are some things that would be thought very light unless they were shown in the Scriptures to be grave beyond belief." (P. L., XL, 270). —IDEM, De Civ. Dei, XXI, c. 27, n. 5: "It is most difficult to discover, and most dangerous to define, which sins so impede arrival at the kingdom of God that they nevertheless obtain pardon through the merits of the saints. For my part, up to this time, although I have applied myself to the matter, I have not been able to trace them out." (P. L., XLI, 750). —The reason why God left this question unsolved, St. Augustine finds in the salutary admonition to avoid all sins: "And perhaps they remain hidden for this reason: lest zeal for advancement grow sluggish in avoiding all sins. But now, while the measure of venial iniquity, even if it persists, is unknown, zeal for progressing toward better things is certainly exercised more watchfully by perseverance in prayer." (Ibid.)
30 Quodlibet., IX, art. 15: "Every question in which mortal sin is at issue is decided perilously unless an express truth is possessed." —Cfr. J. Gerson, De Vita Spirit., lect. 4: "Theological doctors ought not readily to assert that certain sins are mortal where they are not most certain of the matter; for by rigid assertions of this kind in universal matters men are by no means raised from the mire of sins, but are plunged into it more deeply because more despairingly."
31 "I counsel one thing: that you not be too prone to judge sins mortal where this is not established for you by a certain text; otherwise men might be led into despair." (CL. 3, tit. de Poenit. et Rem., § 21.) —Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Homo Apost., tr. 1 6, n. 118; J. E. Pruner, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, 3rd ed., p. 189.
A conscientious Catholic will strive to avoid all sins, venial as well as mortal.32
32 Cfr. St. Augustine, De Bapt., II, c. 6, n. 9: "Let us not bring deceitful balances, in which we weigh what we wish and how we wish, saying according to our own judgment, ‘This is grave, this is light’; but let us bring the divine balance from the Holy Scriptures, as from the Lord’s treasuries, and in it weigh what is graver—or rather, let us not weigh, but recognize what has been weighed by the Lord." (Migne, P. L., XLIII, 132).
Mortal sin, therefore, is a wilful transgression of the law of God in a matter which one knows or believes to be important. It robs man of sanctifying grace, deprives him of the friendship of God, and renders him deserving of eternal damnation.
Venial sin, on the other hand, is either a violation of an important law without full advertence or consent, or a transgression of a law of slight importance.33 Venial sin does not destroy sanctifying grace and is more easily pardoned than mortal sin because it does not involve formal contempt (contemptus) but merely neglect of God (neglectio Dei).
33 Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. V, n. 51: "Mortal sin is that which because of its gravity destroys grace and friendship with God and deserves eternal punishment. It is called mortal because it takes away the principle of spiritual life, namely habitual grace, and brings death to the soul. Venial sin is that which because of its lightness does not take away grace and divine friendship, although it diminishes the fervor of charity and deserves temporal punishment. It is called venial because, while the principle of spiritual life, namely grace, is preserved, it inflicts upon the soul an easily curable sickness and easily obtains pardon." (Ed. Gaudé, II, 747).
- If there were no distinction between mortal and venial sin, then either all sins would be mortal or all would be venial. The former proposition would entail Rigorism, the latter Laxism. It has been objected that the Catholic teaching on this subject is derogatory to virtue and breeds lax opinions and carelessness. This accusation is unfounded. The Church expressly teaches that venial sin is incomparably worse than any temporal injury or evil, and can be expiated only by sincere contrition and penitence, through the merits of Jesus Christ. She exhorts her children to avoid all venial sins by means of prayer, self-discipline, and the grace of God, because no man is allowed to commit even the slightest offense against the majesty and justice of God.34 "No confessor," says Gury, "does his full duty unless he tries to wean his penitents from frequent venial sins, especially such as involve full advertence, since a man who does not strive to avoid venial sins easily falls into mortal sins."
34 Rom. III, 8.
READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 1a 2ae, qu. 72, art. 5; qu. 88-89. —IDEM, De Malo, qu. 7, art. 1-2. —IDEM, Summa contra Gentiles, III, c. 143-144. —Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, pp. 528 sqq. —F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 156 sqq. —Chr. Pesch, S.J., Theologische Zeitfragen, II, Freiburg 1901, pp. 47 sqq., 83 sqq.—J. Stufler, S.J., Die Heiligkeit Gottes und der ewige Tod, Innsbruck 1903. —IDEM, Die Theorien der freiwilligen Verstocktheit, Innsbruck 1905. —H. Gerigk, Wesen und Voraussetzungen der Todsünde, Breslau 1903.—Ph. Kneib, Die "Jenseitsmoral" pp. 99 sqq.—Th. Slater, SJ., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 136 sqq. —Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 6 sqq. —J. Mausbach, Catholic Moral Teaching and Its Antagonists, New York 1914, pp. 258 sqq. —G. H. Joyce, SJ., The Catholic Doctrine of Grace, N. Y. 1920, pp. 202 sqq. —J. S. Vaughan, Venial Sin, London 1924. —A. Landgraf, Das Wesen der lässlichen Sünde in der Scholastik bis Thomas von Aquin, Bamberg, 1923. —V. Cathrein, SJ., Die lässliche Sünde und die Mittel zu ihrer Verhütung, Freiburg i. B. 1926.