Article II: On Venial Sin

340. DEFINITION. Venial sin is a light transgression of the divine law, lessening the fervor of charity, and rendering man worthy of temporal punishment (V, 51; H. Ap., III, 23).

It is called venial because it does not take away the principle of pardon, which is grace, and therefore easily obtains pardon; but not as if it were a thing light in itself or to be little esteemed. It is enough to understand, says St. Alphonsus, that it is an offense of God, so that it be avoided more than any other evil whatsoever (Instr. cat., Introd., n. 9).

DIVISION. Venial sins are such either per se, or per accidens.

1. Venial sins per se, or from their genus, are those which, by reason of the object, are always venial, so that they never become mortal unless they are drawn outside their proper species on account of some supervening circumstance. Thus a lie always remains venial, unless by reason of harm or another circumstance it passes to another species.

Of this kind are, generally, sins committed against one's own good, as useless and vain concupiscence, vain delight of the senses, prodigality, curiosity, superfluity of clothing, excess in food, in drink, in sleep, in laughter, in fear, in sadness, in appetite for money, praise, and several other things which will be enumerated below when we treat of capital sins.

2. Venial sins per accidens are those which indeed from their genus are mortal, but which, on account of smallness of matter or another circumstance, become light, as will be explained below (n. 342, quaer. 2).

341. PRINCIPLE. For venial sin three things are required: an obligation imposed by some precept, advertence at least half-full to the light malice of the transgression, and some consent, at least imperfect. That these three are required is clear; for, these being removed, either there would be a transgression of no law, or there would be no knowledge and willing of evil, that is, no deformed human act would be present, and consequently no sin properly so called.

From these things, venial sin is clearly discerned from imperfection, in which not all things intervene which are required for constituting formal sin. Namely, IMPERFECTION is usually taken in a twofold sense. 1. In one sense, imperfection, with respect to law, is called an action or omission repugnant not indeed to some positive precept, but to mere counsel; to executing which someone is incited either through the impulse of grace, or through the dictate of reason, or only through the directive will of Superiors. Imperfection, taken in this sense, is not per se sin; for where there is no precept, there is no transgression of a precept. We said per se, because often imperfections of this sort, on account of various circumstances, are not free from fault, for example, on account of vicious love, curiosity, sensuality, sloth, etc. 2. In the other sense, imperfection, by reason of act, is called a transgression of precept wholly indeliberate and involuntary, both in itself and in the cause, such as wholly involuntary distractions during prayer, involuntary excess in laughter, in sadness, in indignation, in joking, in telling stories. In this sense, imperfection is free from all fault.¹

342. Questions. QUAER. 1. Whence must the DIFFERENCE between mortal sin and venial sin be taken?

Resp. The Doctors more commonly teach that it must be taken from the essentially diverse mode by which the will converts itself to the creature in each sin. Namely, by sinning mortally, the will converts itself to the creature totally, as if the creature were its ultimate end, and therefore it averts itself totally from God, and at least implicitly contemns his friendship. But by sinning venially, the will, while preserving its habitual tendency toward its ultimate end, that is, toward God, pursues the creature only by an undue and inordinate love: wherefore it incurs only temporal punishment, which corresponds to the inordinate conversion to the creature.²

And in this sense St. Thomas seems to speak when he says that venial sin is not against, but beside the law; understand that it is not against the end of the law, which is charity, but is against the order of the law to be observed, and consequently is a true transgression of law, as is clear from the definition of sin (cf. V, 11).

QUAER. 2. In how many ways does a sin, mortal from its genus, become VENIAL?

Resp. In three ways: a) from smallness of matter; b) from imperfection of knowledge, that is, either from an invincibly erroneous conscience, by which someone judges that something is venial which of itself is mortal, or from half-full advertence; c) from imperfection of consent (cf. n. 336).

QUAER. 3. From how many causes can a sin, venial from its genus, become MORTAL?

Resp. From six causes, namely:

1. By reason of error, when someone in reality wills or operates something which of itself is a light sin, but seriously thinks or doubts, from erroneous conscience, that it is a grave sin (cf. n. 22; 337, q. 2).

2. By reason of an adjoined end, when, namely, to an act per se venially evil there is joined a gravely sinful end: as if someone lies lightly in order to seduce a girl (n. 306, 307).

3. By reason of excessive affection, when, namely, in a lightly evil thing the ultimate end is constituted, so that the man badly disposed at least by an internal act sets it before God, and knowingly and actually is prepared gravely to offend God rather than renounce his vain delight.

4. By reason of formal contempt of the law, or of the legislator: thus "it is mortal to do or omit something from contempt of a just human law; likewise, from contempt of God prescribing or even counseling, which for that reason contains a tacit blasphemy, as if God prescribed or counseled useless things, etc." (V, 61, 3). Cf. things said n. 179, 3.

5. By reason of scandal, when grave scandal of the little ones proceeds from venial fault: as if from venially evil words which parents bring forth, children are gravely scandalized; or if children, through light disobedience, knowingly provoke parents to blasphemies.

6. By reason of danger, when, from a light fault, there arises a proximate or probable danger of sinning gravely: as if someone talks idly with a woman, having sufficiently learned by experience that from conversations of this kind he has often sinned mortally (I, 22; V, 59-63; H. Ap., III, 68).

343. From the things said you will resolve: 1. Several venial sins cannot constitute one mortal sin by reason of multiplication; because since mortal and venial differ essentially between themselves, the nature of one cannot become the nature of the other. Whence St. Thomas (1.2, q. 88, a. 4): "All the venial sins of the world cannot have so great a guilt-boundness as one mortal sin." And St. Alphonsus: "It is better to permit innumerable venial sins than one mortal sin" (III, 130).

Nevertheless they can reach mortal sin by reason of matter coalescing. "It must be adverted," says St. Alphonsus, "that small matters repeated then constitute grave matter when they coalesce of themselves, or at least morally in themselves; as are small thefts, small omissions in the office, in Mass, or small eatings repeated on the same fast day" (V, 56, 2; H. Ap., III, 67).

2. Any Christian who wishes to avoid mortal sins alone, without caring anything about omitting venial sins, does not sin mortally, speaking per se; the reason is because a purpose of this kind conduces to mortal sin only remotely. But it is otherwise if contempt is present, or the proximate danger of falling into mortal sin, respect being had to past experience (IV, 12). As to religious, cf. n. 2154.

3. Someone does not sin gravely by reason of excessive affection from the fact that he is borne very intensively and vehemently into a created thing; but it is required that appreciatively he esteem that object, at least virtually, in such a way that he is actually prepared, on account of it, to transgress a precept obliging under mortal sin. We say actually prepared; because that which he is disposed only habitually to commit is not imputed to him as fault (V, 60).

4. A confessor does not satisfy his office if he has no care to remove the penitent from frequency of venial sins, especially those which are committed with full advertence. The reason is because he who casts aside all care of avoiding venial sins will little by little fall into mortal sins (cf. n. 344, 5).

344. Venial sin produces many effects, and these calamitous ones (Lancicius, de Fuga pecc. ven., l. I). The chief are the following:

1. It offends God. "It does not indeed affect him with grave injury," says St. Alphonsus, "but nevertheless with some injury. It is not a grave evil, as mortal sin is, but it is a greater evil than all other evils which can happen to creatures" (Inst. cat., Introd., n. 9).

2. It induces guilt-boundness of punishment (per se temporal), to be undergone in this life or in the other. We said per se temporal; for the Angelic Doctor thinks (1.2, q. 87, a. 5, ad 3) that although venial sin, since it does not separate from God, does not merit eternal punishment, nevertheless it can per accidens, whether by reason of irremissibility, be punished eternally, if it is found in the damned not remitted with respect to fault.

3. It impedes special graces, and renders man unworthy of that peculiar affection of God by which he himself is accustomed to pursue the just, according to that saying (Matt. 7:2): In what measure you have measured, it shall be measured back to you.

4. It lessens the fear of God, and increases tepidity of soul. Nevertheless it does not directly lessen charity or the other infused virtues, but it lessens the fervor of charity.

5. It disposes to mortal sin. This is clear: a) From Ecclus. 19:1: He who despises small things will fall little by little. b) From daily practice. Moreover, it disposes both negatively, by diminishing the fervor of divine charity, the horror of sin, the alacrity of faith, and divine grace; and positively, by increasing the inclination of the will to evil, whence it comes about that at last man rushes headlong into mortal sin (Selva, P. I, c. 5).

IT IS ASKED. Whether venial sin causes a STAIN in the soul?

St. Thomas responds (1.2, q. 89, a. 1): "Just as in the body there is a twofold brightness, one indeed from the intrinsic disposition of members and color, but the other from exterior clarity supervening: so also in the soul there is a twofold brightness. One indeed habitual, as if intrinsic, but the other actual, as if exterior brilliance. But venial sin indeed impedes actual brightness, yet not habitual brightness ... Whence, properly speaking, venial sin does not cause a stain in the soul. And if somewhere it is said to induce a stain, this is in a certain respect, insofar as it impedes the brightness which is from acts of the virtues."