Case 7. The Philosophic Sin

To Caius, a priest, it seems that theologians, even recent ones, do not sufficiently weigh the circumstances in which the less instructed among the faithful especially live today when they discuss the malice of sins. For very many have from infancy been so accustomed to sins of drunkenness and lust and to the omission of Mass on days of obligation that they regard these and other things as almost nothing. Added to this are bad habits contracted from infancy which blind the conscience and weaken the will. Moreover, such persons scarcely ever think about God except perhaps when they come to church, and therefore, even if they act badly, they do not intend to offend God with the danger of eternal punishment. Led by these reasons, Caius imposes an altogether light penance upon the less instructed who confess such things and readily dismisses them absolved. Hence it is asked:

1. What is mortal sin, and what is required and sufficient for sinning mortally?

2. Is there such a thing as a philosophic sin?

3. Is there invincible ignorance of the natural law and of the obvious obligations of one’s own state?

4. What is to be said about the theory of Caius and his manner of acting?

1. What is mortal sin and what is necessary and sufficient in order to sin mortally ? A mortal sin is a grievous offence against Almighty God, a turning away from God, our last end, and a preferring of some creature to Him. It robs the soul of the grace and friendship of God which constitute its life. It causes the spiritual death of the soul, and on this account it is called mortal. If a man dies while in the state of mortal sin, he can not enter heaven without the wedding garment of God’s grace, and he will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell.

To sin mortally three conditions are necessary and sufficient. The matter must be serious, that is, the act done must be notably inordinate and wrong; it must be a serious disturbance of right order in itself, or because it is contrary to a grave precept imposed by a legitimate authority. At the time when the sin is committed the sinner must clearly know and advert to the malice of his action. This does not mean that he must reflect expressly on the fact that he is doing wrong, or that he is offending God, or that he is doing something that deserves hell. A man who does not expressly think of God or of hell can certainly commit mortal sin. It means that he is fully conscious of what he is doing and that he knows that it is seriously wrong. He may not realize the consequences of his act; what sinner ever did realize the terrible consequences of mortal sin? Moreover, there must be full consent given to the act. A mere hesitation or dallying with the temptation is not sufficient; there must be full and perfect consent to what is known to be seriously wrong.

2. Does philosophic sin exist ?

By a philosophic sin is meant an act against right reason without being an offence against God. Alexander VIII, on Aug. 24, 1690, condemned the following proposition: “A philosophic or moral sin is a human act at variance with a rational nature and right reason; a theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the divine law. A philosophic sin, however grave, in him who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is a grave sin indeed, but it is not an offence against God, nor a mortal sin depriving the sinner of the friendship of God, nor deserving of eternal punishment." A sin, therefore, which is seriously against a rational nature and right reason is also an offence against God which robs the sinner of God's grace and merits the punishments of hell. Implicitly contained in the judgment of the sinner that an act which he performs is against right reason and wrong, is another judgment that it is against the law of God; for right reason applied to moral action is nothing but a participation of the eternal law of God which commands right order to be observed, and forbids it to be disturbed. Therefore, there is no such thing as a merely philosophic sin.

3. Is there such a thing as invincible ignorance of the natural law and of the ordinary obligations of one’s state of life?

Among people who have the use of reason invincible ignorance of the general principles of morality, such as are contained in the Decalogue, can not be admitted. No human society could long hold together unless those general principles were known and ordinarily acted upon. The same is true of the ordinary obligations of one’s state of life. Invincible ignorance about the application of those general principles in particular circumstances and cases exists not only among the less instructed but among the better instructed also. Hence the variety of opinions among moral theologians.

4. The case. Caius, a priest, thinks that moral theologians do not take sufficient account of the circumstances in which the faithful of the humbler sort live in our days. Very many are so accustomed from childhood to sins of drunkenness, lust, and neglect of Sunday Mass, that they scarcely think anything of them; they contract bad habits in childhood which blind their consciences and weaken their wills; besides, such people scarcely ever think of God except perhaps when they come to Church, and so even if they do wrong, they do not intend to offend God with danger of eternal punishment. For these reasons when such people confess such sins to him Caius imposes a light penance and absolves them without difficulty.

Caius is wrong in acting in this way, and instead of helping his penitents to lead better lives he will probably make them think still less of sin and commit it readily. What he says is unfortunately true of large numbers in our towns. Their antecedents and surroundings have much to do with their sad condition. Still the fact that many in the same circumstances lead very good lives shows that even their wretched surroundings do not deprive them of the power of being good if they choose to be so. We know that unfortunately men may know very well what sin is, and yet drink it in like water. From what was said above it is plain that to commit sin it is not necessary to think expressly of God or of the punishments of hell; it is sufficient if they know that what they do is seriously wrong. They may be partly excusable on account of their surroundings; how far can be known only to God. Caius, however, should change his method of dealing with them; he may be as considerate and kind as he can be; but he should be a more faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God. As the Council of Trent teaches, he should impose penances which are salutary and have some proportion to the number and gravity of the sins confessed, and try to arouse in his penitents a hatred and detestation of sin. Of course he must also be on his guard against frightening such penitents away from the sacraments by imposing penances that are too severe for them.