Talking to my evangelical friends about sin

Chapter 8 of the book Talking with My Evangelical Friends by José Miguel Arráiz

Michael: Joseph, I still have doubts as to why Catholics believe that not all sins are equal. Can you explain it?

Pauline: Yes, I’m interested in that topic too, because if there is a thing that the Bible says clearly, it’s that “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6,23) and it doesn’t make any separation between the types of sins, as if one was more serious than the other. I’ve always understood that sin is sin, no more.

Joseph: The thing for you to understand is that I’ll have to explain first some concepts of Catholic theology.

Pauline: As long as they are supported by the Bible, there is no problem.

Joseph: Well, yes, but in an implicit way1.

Pauline, Michael and Charles: Okay, go ahead.

Joseph: First, you have to know that every act that a person can freely do can be good or bad, and we call this a moral act. Now, there are three factors that determine if an act is good or bad.

Pauline: I see it in a simple way. If you do something that is approved by the Bible, it’s a good act, but if it is not approved by the Bible, it’s not good.

Joseph: It is not that simple because you can do something that is approved by the Bible as a good thing, like helping another person who needs it, but do it for the wrong reasons. For example, if you do it so you can be looked and considered as a good person. That was what the Pharisees used to do, so their work, which was good, became bad because of their vicious intent (Matt 6,2). This same principle applies even to prayer because the Pharisees prayed in the streets only to be praised for being righteous, so Jesus considers them hypocrites (Matt 6,5).

Michael: You’re right.

Joseph: This is the reason why we say that the morality of a human act can be judged by three elements: 1) the object: that is the action itself, like stealing, lying, giving alms, praying, etc.; 2) the intention: that is the motivation that leads you to do it; and 3) the circumstances: that is the context where the act happens2.

This is why an act whose object is the same (like praying), depending on the intention with which it’s done (to worship God or to receive human praises) can be good or bad. In fact, depending on the circumstances, an act may be even more serious than another.

Pauline: But that doesn’t explain why you think that there are sins more serious than others.

Joseph: Let me explain this with a practical example. Imagine that after her pregnancy, Michael’s wife is overweight. Worried about looking that way she asks him: “Honey, do I look very fat?” and he says “No, my darling, not at all”. Is that a sin or not?

Pauline: Well, if she really is fat, that will be a sin because the Bible says that lying is a sin.

Joseph: And we believe that lying is one of the acts that is intrinsically disordered3, that is, that it doesn’t matter what intentions or circumstances surround the act, the moral act will always be a sin4. Not only lies are intrinsically disordered, but direct abortion, blasphemy and other acts are examples too.

Pauline: Well, then do you recognizes that it’s a sin?

Joseph: Of course, but what do you think is more serious? That lie or another where I slander and defame a person in public by accusing her or him of being a thief, murderer, prostitute, without that being true?

Pauline: The two things are a sin.

Joseph: Yes, but both sins are not equal before God. Or is it as serious as murdering or raping a child or carrying out genocide?

Pauline: I agree that they are not equal, but what I say is that if the payment of sin is a condemnation, it doesn’t matter if it is slight or serious, we all are prisoners of death because of this.

Joseph: Remember that the Bible also says that not all the sins have the same gravity and punishment. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Jesus says: “But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the 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.”(Matt 5,22). See that he talks about three types of offenses, one more serious than another, and all of them have different sanctions. If all the sins were equal it wouldn’t make any sense to make the distinction, they all would be criminals of Hell and period.

In the gospel of John, we see that Jesus tells to Pilate: “Thou shouldst not have any power against me unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee hath the greater sin.” There you have Jesus himself saying that one sin is more serious than the other.

There are so many examples, for instance, scandalizing and losing a child is so serious that Jesus says “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt 18,6). The sin of Judas was so serious that according to Jesus “it would be better for him not to be born.” (Matt 26,24; Mark 14,21)

Michael: But then how can we understand the text that we mentioned where it is said that “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6,23)? You can’t see any distinction there.

Joseph: What the apostle wants to say is that we all have been affected by the original sin, and without the grace of God, we couldn’t be saved. But that doesn’t mean that when a believer justified by faith is in God’s grace, any sin will make him fall from that state of grace, because in that case nobody would be saved since he will hardly be surprised by death without having committed a fault, even a very small one. Remember that in our last conversation, we said that the righteous sins seven times a day (Prov 24,16). The apostle John recognizes as a fact that the righteous continue to sin: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar: and his word is not in us.”(1 John 1,10).

Therefore, it is a mistake to think that any sin interrupts your communion with God, and it is a mistake too to think that no sin can do it.

Pauline: But if we look at this in that way, what is the sense of avoiding sins? If there are sins less serious than the others, let’s commit the least serious ones and there will be no problem.

Joseph: I didn’t say that the venial sins (by this I refer to the non-mortal sins) don’t have consequences, later we can discuss a topic related to this. What I say is that not every sin is mortal, and St. John says it in the Bible: “All iniquity is sin. but there is sin that does not lead to death.” (1 John 5,17).

If you can remember, I’ve told you that the morality of the human act is determined by three factors: the object, the intention and the circumstances. You’ve seen how the intention can influence the morality of an act, now I’m going to give you an example of how the circumstances can influence, either by reducing or aggravating the guilt, or responsibility of the subject.

Jesus says in the Gospel: “And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.” (Luke 12,47-48). Look how the circumstance (the knowledge of each other) aggravates the responsibility of each one and makes them more or less guilty. In this case, the disobedience of some of them will be judged more seriously than the others, and that wouldn’t make any sense if all the sins were the same.

This is the reason why St. Paul takes the time to identify some sins that are so serious that they can cut off the relationship with God and that would mean to condemn if we live without a true repentance to obtain the forgiveness:“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.”(1 Cor 6,9).

After this explanation, I hope that you can now understand why the Catholic Church makes a distinction between mortal and venial sins. For all of them, we thank God that He has given us the sacrament of the penance.

Footnotes

  1. In the Bible there are truths that even when they don’t appear as a formal (explicit) definition, they can be deduced from what the Bible teaches (implicit). For example, the Trinity, the mystery of the incarnation, etc.
  2. If we determine the morality of the human act by the consequences, we make the mistake of falling into the consequentialism. The Church has always rejected that the end justifies the means (it is not lawful, for example, to murder a person to take away the organs and save them for four other people, nor to rob the rich to give something to the poor). For more information about this, you can read the encyclical by Pope John Paul II Veritatis Splendor.
  3. There are acts that by their object are not intrinsically disordered, and their morality can be good or bad depending on the circumstances or the intentions. For example, it is lawful to kill in self-defense and defend the life from an unjust aggressor. On the other hand, a lie is always a sin, although “The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.”(CEC 2484). But even when lying is never lawful, it is lawful to hide a truth from someone that has no right to know it. St. Thomas responds to the objection that it’s lawful to lie to save a life: “A lie is sinful not only because it injures one’s neighbor, but also on account of its inordinateness, as stated above in this Article. Now it is not allowed to make use of anything inordinate in order to ward off injury or defects from another: as neither is it lawful to steal in order to give an alms, except perhaps in a case of necessity when all things are common. Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says (Contra Mend. x)” (The Summa Theologica– Part II-IIae – q 110 – Art. 3). However, in the Church, there is a minority tendency that tries to legitimize the lie in cases where telling the truth can bring serious consequences to someone and where is not always possible to hide the truth from the person who has no right to know it. Among the Fathers: Clement from Alexandria, Origins, St. John Chrysostom, St. Hilary, Casiano. Even St. Augustine experienced these cases: “The question about lies–he writes- is complicated and frequently distresses us in our daily activity” (From mendacio 1, 1: PL 40,487). Among the medieval theologians are William of Auxerre, Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure.
  4. Of course, it is always lawful to keep information from the one who is not right, which is different from lying.
Scroll to Top