Case 1. The Elements of Sin

Thomas, recently placed in charge of a certain mission by the bishop, is of such a disposition of mind that he fears everything, perceiving difficulties and even sin everywhere. As often as he sits in the sacred tribunal to hear confessions, he is assailed by indecent thoughts and motions; when he applies himself to the study of moral theology, the same thing always happens to him. Several times during the day he repeats the resolution to die rather than consent; nevertheless, the temptations return and cling more tenaciously. He fears, moreover, that at least sometimes, although he had a firm will to expel temptations of this kind, he resisted negligently at the beginning. Finally, for recreation he read through a certain book treating profane love, although he foresaw most grave temptations and actually suffered them; nevertheless, he remained doubtful whether he consented or not. Hence it is asked:

1. What is deliberately entertained pleasure, what is joy, and what is desire?

2. By what stages does one arrive at sinful pleasure, and how is sin committed?

3. How is the species of sins of this kind discerned?

4. Just as the object of joy and desire must be disclosed in confession, must the object of deliberately entertained pleasure also be disclosed?

5. What judgment is to be made concerning Thomas’s case?

1. For the answer to this question see “Manual of Moral Theology,” p. 149 and following.

2. By what degrees is sinful pleasure arrived at, and how is the sin committed?

The first stage on the road to sin is the apprehension of a sinful object by the intellect. We here suppose that this simple apprehension is not voluntary. The sinful object thus present in the mind naturally attracts the appetite and an indeliberate motion of the will toward the object is the consequence. Then the intellect notices what is going on and reflects that it would be wrong to consent to the inordinate motion. If consent be given after advertence to the wrongfulness of the object, sin is committed. So that there is no sin in the apprehension of a sinful object by the intellect, nor in the natural and indeliberate movement of the will toward that object which follows. Sin is committed by freely choosing something which is sinful, and this can not be done without previous advertence by the intellect to the sinfulness of the object.

3. How are the species of this sort of sin known and distinguished?

Sins are human acts, and acts are specifically distinguished by their object, so that the species of a sin is known by its object. The object in sinful desire is something wrong in the concrete, invested with certain circumstances without which the object can not exist in the concrete. Sinful desire, then, will contract the malice of the object, and that of any evil circumstances with which the object may be invested. The same is true of joy about a sin committed in the past. Morose delectation in a sinful act as represented in the mind can prescind from certain circumstances which would invest the object in the concrete, and if it does so prescind from them, they do not form part of the object of the sinful delectation, and so they do not affect its malice.

4. Has the object of morose delectation to be made known in confession as the object of evil joy and desire has?

Yes, in itself; for otherwise the sin will not be confessed in its kind. Thus morose delectation in a thought of fornication is quite a different sin from morose delectation in a thought of revenge. Some theologians, however, admit an exception to this rule in the case of morose delectations of impurity. They point out that ordinarily in such sins it is not so much the object which attracts as the immodest pleasure which such thoughts ordinarily cause. This immodest pleasure gives unity to the sins of thought, even though their objects are different. This opinion relieves confessors of the irksome duty of asking for details about such sins in the confessional beyond the number and the kind in general. Detailed questions about the objects of such sins frequently could not be put without danger both to the penitent and to the confessor.¹

1 Génicot, vol. i, no. 175.

5. The case. Thomas, a priest who has lately been put in charge of a mission, is of a timid disposition, and fears difficulties and sin everywhere. He is tempted by bad thoughts and feelings whenever he hears confessions, as he was when he studied moral theology. These temptations are not sins, for he does not consent to them. They probably come from his being afraid of them, and they will cease if he does not bother about them, and commits himself to God. Sometimes he is afraid that at least he was negligent in repelling them at once. We understand by repelling thoughts of this kind the turning away of the mind from them as far as possible. Thomas may have committed fault in this way, as it is difficult always to be prompt in rejecting such thoughts, but the negligence would not be more than a venial sin. In reading a novel for recreation, though he foresaw that serious temptations would be the result, he did not commit a sin unless he foresaw proximate danger of consenting to evil. This we must not presume in a man like Thomas. Afterward he doubts whether he gave consent to evil; as the presumption is in his favor he need not confess this. However, it will be better if Thomas will for the future seek his recreation where he is not likely to be troubled by thoughts and feelings which are always objectionable and dangerous.