CHAPTER 7

SIN AND CONVERSION

The following is the true story of Bernard Nathanson, M.D., a leading abortion provider who came
to discover the sanctity of unborn human life. His newfound belief in the pro-life cause made him
aware of his own need and desire for God. This story was taken with permission from Dr.
Nathanson’s book, The Hand of God, published by Regnery Publishing Inc.

It was not supposed to work this way. The whole unimaginable sequence has moved in reverse,
like water flowing uphill. The usual and customary progression is: belief in God and his splendid
gift of life leads the believer to defend it and to become pro-life. With me, it was just the opposite.
Perversely, I journeyed from being anti-life to belief in God. I was not seeking anything spiritual;
my desires have always been, for the most part, earthly and of the flesh, my goals concrete and
tangible — and readily liquefiable into cash. To make matters worse, I was openly contemptuous
of all this, as a stiff-backed Jewish atheist, or as Richard Gilman would have taxonomized, “a
perfunctory Jew.”
Getting from there to here wasn’t easy. I went through a ten-year “transitional time” —
perhaps 1978– 1988 — when I felt the burden of sin growing heavier and more insistent. It was as
if the contents of the baggage of my life were mysteriously absorbed in some metaphysical
moisture, making them bulkier, heavier, more weighty and more impossible to bear. I found myself
longing for a magical phlogiston, a substance that would contribute a negative weight to my heavy
burden.
During this decade, it was the hour of the wolf that was the most trying time. I would awaken each
morning at four or five o’clock, staring into the darkness and hoping (but not praying, yet) for a
message to flare forth acquitting me before some invisible jury. After a suitable period of thwarted
anticipation, I would once again turn on my bedside lamp, pick up the literature of sin (by this time
I had accumulated a substantial store of it), and reread passages from St. Augustine’s Confessions
(a staple), Dostoyevski, Paul Tillich, Kierkegaard, Niebuhr, and even Lewis Mumford and Waldo
Frank. St. Augustine spoke most starkly of my existential torment but, with no St. Monica to show
me the way, I was seized by an unremitting black despair. . . .
Like the diagnostician I was trained to be, I commenced to analyze the patient’s humors, the patient
being myself. I determined that I was suffering from an affliction of the spirit; the disorder had
arisen, at least in part, from an excess of existential freedom, and this had created penumbral
despair. I had been cast adrift in a limitless sea of sensual freedom — no sextant, no compass, no
charts, simply the dimly apprehended stars of the prevailing penal code, an imitative grasp of the
manners and mores of society (a chimpanzee could be trained to do so well), a minimalist concept
of justice, and a stultified sense of decency. I required not a cure but healing.
I had performed many thousands of abortions on innocent children, and I had failed those whom I
love . . .
The keenest of human tortures is to be judged without law, and mine had been a lawless universe.
Santayana once wrote that the only true dignity of man is his capacity to despise himself. I despised
myself. Perhaps I had at least arrived at the beginning of the quest for human dignity. I had begun
a serious self-examination (the unexamined life is barely worth living) and had begun to face the
twisted moral homunculus reflected in the mirror of self-examination.
I knew now that the primary illness is the severing of the links between sin and fault, between
ethically corrupt action and cost. There had been no concrete cost to my corrupt actions, only
behavioral exegesis, and that would not do. I needed to be disciplined and educated. I had become
as Hannah Arendt had described Eichmann: a collection of functions rather than an accountable
human being.
Now I had not been immune to the religious fervor of the pro-life movement. I had been aware in
the early and mid-1980s that a great many of the Catholics and Protestants in the ranks had prayed
for me — were praying for me — and I was not unmoved as time wore on. But it was not until I
saw the spirit put to the test on those bitterly cold demonstration mornings, with pro-choicers
hurling the most fulsome epithets at them, the police surrounding them, the media openly
unsympathetic to their cause, the federal judiciary fining and jailing them, and the municipal
officers threatening them — through it all they sat smiling, quietly praying, singing, confident and
righteous of their cause, and ineradicably persuaded of their ultimate triumph — that I began
seriously to question what indescribable Force led them to this activity. Why, too, was I there?
What had led me to this time and place? Was it the same Force that allowed them to sit serene and
unafraid at the epicenter of legal, physical, ethical, and moral chaos?
And for the first time in my entire adult life, I began to entertain seriously the notion of God — a
God who problematically had led me through the proverbial circles of hell, only to show me the
way to Redemption and mercy through his grace. The thought violated every eighteenth-century
certainty I had cherished; it instantly converted my past into a vile bog of sin and evil; it indicted
me and convicted me of high crimes against those who had loved me, and against those whom I
did not even know; and simultaneously — miraculously — it held out a shimmering sliver of hope
to me, in the growing belief that Someone had died for my sins and my evil two millennia ago.

FOR DISCUSSION

• What is the meaning of sin? Are there different types of sin?

• How did sin originate, and why is it an offense against God and others?
• What personal responsibility do we bear for committing a sin?
• What are the means to conversion and the forgiveness of sin?
• What are the Last Things?

INTRODUCTION

The Book of Genesis reveals that the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, were created in the
image and likeness of God and enjoyed a state of original holiness and justice.1 This original state
of holiness and justice enabled our first parents to have an existence that none of their descendants
would ever enjoy, with the exception of Jesus and Mary.

First of all, Adam and Eve were created without sin and were the recipients of a sanctifying grace
that gave them a close relationship and intimacy with God. This union and habitual conformity
with God’s will resulted in an ongoing happiness and total control of the intellect over their
appetites and passions. Moreover, the original state of justice made them immune to sickness and
death. Part of this exalted existence of the first man and woman was a complete dominion over
creation. Man was right with God, and the rest of creation in turn was subject to man.

But, this ideal situation which gratified our first parents would come to an end. God clearly
specified that they could eat of every tree in the garden, except for the tree of knowledge of good
and evil. If they ate of this tree, they would lose their life of intimacy with God.

The story is familiar. Tempted by the serpent, Eve partook of the fruit of the forbidden tree and
persuaded Adam to do likewise. This blatant act of disobedience and violation of God’s prohibition
ushered sin into the world.

With this first sin, called Original Sin, the original state of holiness and justice dramatically ended.
Adam and Eve lost their special relationship with God and, consequently, the perfect self-control
over their passions. Their minds would be clouded and their wills would be weakened with regard
to the fulfillment of God’s will. They would now be subject to the toil of work, sickness, and
eventually death. The devil would, as it were, have a greater influence in tempting man to sin.
With Original Sin, evil officially entered the world with all its sad and tragic consequences. With
the exception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, no human being would ever enjoy original holiness
and justice. This means that every person conceived is deprived of the original holiness and justice
enjoyed by our first parents.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and
hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.” (CCC 417)
O felix culpa quæ talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem.
O happy fault, which gained for us so great a Redeemer.
— From the Exsultet in the Liturgy of Easter Vigil;
Missale Romanum (1962)

But God did not abandon us. As Genesis foretold, God would send a Redeemer to free man from
sin and its destructive effects. Jesus Christ, through his Death and Resurrection, would restore
what had been lost by Original Sin and offer all mankind a superabundance of grace and the
opportunity to be healed of its sins and to become participants in the divine life of God.

St. Peter Chrysologus wrote that Adam was made by Christ who stamped his image on man.2 This
image of God in which man was created became disfigured by Original Sin, but through Christ it
can be restored. For this reason, the proper end of the Christian life is to become conformed to the
image of Christ, God made man, who is the head of his Body the Church.3

The Original Sin of Adam and Eve did more than just inflict spiritual and moral damage on their
souls. It also affected their emotions and bodies. This injury to the harmony between God and man
disrupted the harmony between human inclinations and appetites, and a person’s mind and will.
Furthermore, because of the linear connection between God, man, and the rest of creation, this first
sin disrupted the original harmony that existed between the world and the human person.
As a result of this first sin, every human being, as a descendant of Adam and Eve, inherits Original
Sin upon conception.4 The effects of Original Sin are automatically transmitted through human
generation. Though a newborn infant is innocent of any willful sin, that baby nevertheless is born
into a fallen human condition. Because of that, the child is born with the stain of Original Sin and
is in need of Redemption.

In addition to being born into sin, human nature is wounded and inclined to sin (concupiscence).
This is expressed in different variations of selfishness and malice. The human person, because of
the disorder caused by Original Sin, is now susceptible to sickness, toil, hardship in work, and the
decline of the body which ultimately results in death.

It is common personal experience that there is a moral disorder or internal struggle in one’s
inclinations, attitudes, feelings, and emotions. For example, angry flare-ups, inexplicable bad
moods, irritability, and unexpected lustful temptations, all manifest a wounded nature.

In the first place, a wounded nature caused by Original Sin consists of limitations of the intellect
in discerning good and evil. This damaged nature also shows itself in a weak and sometimes
malicious will that fails to control selfish passions like lust and anger. At the same time, the will
is inclined to inflict harm on others through gossip, insults, resentment, hatred, even violence.
Everyone has an innate sense that something is not quite right and that there is a perennial gap
between moral ideals and the reality of actual moral conduct.

Original Sin triggers a strong propensity for personal sin, which, if left unchecked, leaves
individuals, families, and societies in a pitiable state. From sad and meaningless lives to the
innumerable bloodbaths of war, sin plays an essential part. The tragic consequences of sin are a
compelling appeal for the merciful healing power and saving graces of Jesus Christ’s Redemption.

To understand the painful consequences of Original Sin, a brief synopsis of physical evil and moral
evil is necessary. Though physical evils, which take the form of natural calamities, are completely
different from moral evils, which are connected with sinful choices and actions, both kinds of
seemingly unrelated evils find their source in Original Sin. The existence of evil and suffering in
the world is a mystery that is illuminated by the suffering, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
who vanquished evil. Through faith we understand that God allows evil to occur because an
ultimate good will come from it and that in Heaven we will someday come to fully understand its
purpose.

Physical evil is a natural and often catastrophic hardship that causes physical harm to man. An
example of this kind of evil is a tornado that can raze towns, resulting in a large number of human
injuries and casualties. Tsunamis, earthquakes, and droughts are just a few disruptions and
variations in the natural world which wreak nightmarish suffering upon man.

Physical evil entered the world with Original Sin. In addition, physical evils may be prompted by
violations of God’s law. Civil wars, political corruption, and atheistic totalitarian regimes in many
occasions cause the populace to suffer grinding poverty and, at times, even famine and starvation.
Failures to act as good stewards of the earth can create an unsafe environment in the form of
pollution, contamination, or infectious diseases. Though it may not seem immediately obvious, the
hostilities of nature in many cases are consequences of sin.

Moral evil is a deliberate infraction of God’s law or a rejection of God’s will. These sinful choices
are the direct cause of suffering both in the acting subject and in those individuals who are the
objects of that act. A person who steals, for instance, harms himself or herself, since he or she has
lost some capacity to be honest and trustworthy. Additionally, the victim, who is deprived of
rightful property, is clearly harmed by this act of injustice.

Lamentably, attacks on the dignity of the human person seen in the form of merciless violence,
governmental corruption, or unbridled hedonism, inflict untold damage on individuals, families,
and societies. One can make a case that the majority of suffering in the world is caused much more
by moral evil than by physical evil.

WHAT IS SIN?

Sin is an offense against God. There are three classical definitions of sin which are offered by two
of the Church’s greatest theologians, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas:

a) Sin is any deed, word, or desire that violates eternal law. (St. Augustine) Eternal law is the
divine wisdom that directs all of creation. Part of this eternal law includes the natural law, which
applies to human beings. A transgression of the natural law, whether through a desire, word, or
deed, is considered a sin.

Any violation of the natural law robs man of his dignity, reduces his freedom and self-control, and
creates a distance between himself and friendship with Christ. Therefore, desires, thoughts, words,
and actions must always be consistent with the natural law, which is a stepping stone for a close
relationship with Christ.

b) Sin is a violation of the moral law. (St. Thomas Aquinas) This definition of sin focuses on the
actual infraction of the Ten Commandments or one of its immediate applications. Put simply, any
violation of the moral law, which always reflects the mind and will of God, is an offense against
God.

It would be erroneous to view an action as a sin only in the case of a direct malicious affront against
God. Many parents, for instance, feel offended when their children deceive them with the lie that
they are at a friend’s house when in reality they are at an unsupervised party. Upon discovering
the deception, parents understandably are hurt because of this outright lie, even though it was not
told out of malice toward the parents. Thus, even without direct malice toward God, the violation
of any law which is derived from God’s commandments is an offense against God.

For example, the obligation to attend Sunday Mass is an expression of the Third Commandment,
which directs us to keep the Lord’s Day holy. As a day reserved for God, the Sunday obligation is
a Precept of the Church and therefore a serious obligation for all Catholics. Cooperation with God’s
loving plan of salvation, personal holiness, and true happiness requires faithfulness to his laws,
whether transmitted directly or through his Church.

c) Sin is a disordered love for creatures over God. (St. Thomas Aquinas) A person sins by violating
God’s law, not necessarily out of a personal desire to directly offend God. In most instances, sin
arises from an inordinate attachment to created goods, which alienates, to some degree, oneself
from God.

An act of stealing consists of unjustly taking possession of an item that belongs to another. This
type of injustice involves injury to another party and violates one’s personal dignity.

Whether it pertains to robbery, lying, or physical abuse, the common element is the pursuit of
selfish goals which take precedence over the will of God. Sins of the flesh especially reflect this
particular definition of sin. These types of sin consist in giving priority to lustful gratification in a
manner that involves a rejection of God’s will and brings about a consequent diminution of
personal dignity.

In a certain sense all sins manifest a form of idolatry in that the person places some other thing
before God. It is quite helpful to realize that no partial good can ever truly satisfy the longings of
the human heart, and that sin eventually leaves the person empty, perhaps after a fleeting thrill.
This moral emptiness is wonderfully depicted in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.5

These three definitions of sin are implicitly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God
and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and
injures human solidarity. . . .
Sin is an offense against God . . . . Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts
away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become
“like gods”6 knowing and determining good and evil. . . . In this proud self-exaltation, sin is
diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.7 (CCC 1849– 1850)

Sin, as an offense against God, neighbor, and self, is the only evil that man can commit, and the
only thing that we must bear in life. “. . . for you on earth there is but one evil, which you must
fear and avoid with the grace of God: sin.”8

SIN IN SACRED SCRIPTURE

We can begin our study of sin by examining how sin is regarded in Scriptures, both in the Old
Testament and in the New Testament.

Sin in the Old Testament. Throughout the Old Testament, the overriding notion of sin is infidelity
to a loving Father who lavishes his blessings on his people. In every phase in the history of God’s
chosen people, God wants his people to enjoy a healthy, peaceful, and long life — he wants them
to be happy. Fidelity to his commandments demonstrates love of God and, in turn, ensures God’s
promises of protection and generous assistance. However, disobedience or rejection of his laws is
not taken merely as an infraction of a law, but as infidelity to God’s covenant and ingratitude for
his unmitigated love.

Especially in the books of Isaiah and Hosea, Israel’s sins are likened to marital infidelity. This
image is quite striking because God, through the prophetic writings, discloses his own dispositions
toward the Chosen People. His love for them is equated with the all-consuming devotion of a
loving husband for his wife. It follows that the sins of God’s people are put on the same par as
adultery. The expected response to adultery is the total cancellation of the benefits connected with
the marriage covenant, banishment from the household, and, according to Old Testament Law,
death.

Nevertheless, God does not persist in his anger and mercifully takes back his wayward wife — his
Chosen People — time and again. As demonstrated by this allegorical image of God’s covenant
with his people, sin is an action that abuses God’s love and prevents him from lavishing his loving
care upon his sons and daughters.

Sin in the New Testament. In the New Testament, sin is much more divinely personalized than in
the Old Testament. Human sin is the essential reason for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, which
fully reveals the love of the Father. Though a mystery, the Redemption from sin begins with Jesus’
conception in Mary’s virginal womb and culminates with his Death and Resurrection.

The reparation and Redemption from sin leads the Son of God in his human nature to undergo
unparalleled suffering, humiliation, and anguish. Jesus, who is God the Son, suffers on account of
sin — more from our loss of dignity, happiness, and, in certain cases, salvation than from any
personal offense to himself. Since man is ruined and damaged by sin, Jesus suffers out of love and
compassion toward the one who has injured himself.

The high price for our sins required Jesus’ Crucifixion and Death. Put in other words, our sins
result in the suffering and Death of Jesus on the Cross. With this idea in mind, we can understand
how the concept of sin greatly surpasses a simple infraction of some moral guideline.

Both Testaments show how sin damages man, and how God ardently wants to forgive the sinner.
The analogy that began as an offended lover culminates with the love of Jesus Christ demonstrated
by his Death on the Cross.

MORTAL AND VENIAL SINS

As we have seen in previous chapters dealing with moral acts, every sin (other than Original Sin)
is a personal and willful act of one’s thoughts, desires, or actions. The choice of acting in
contradiction to God’s moral law and Jesus’ teachings about holiness constitutes a sin. It is
committed at the moment the individual, through a deliberate act of the will, implicitly or explicitly
rejects God’s will.
We have seen, too, that a sin is a personal act, because a sin is always the result of a free decision.
It is precisely because a person freely chooses that he or she personally bears the guilt of his or her
sin. Although there may be mitigating circumstances lessening the degree of guilt, each person is
ultimately responsible for his or her own actions.

Sacred Scripture shows that sins are not all of the same kind, nor are all immoral acts equally
sinful. The most common classification of sin is according to whether it is a mortal sin or a venial
sin.

Mortal sin is a grave offense against God that destroys our relationship with him. In committing a
mortal sin, we willingly choose a disordered act which separates us from God and his divine love.9
Our relationship with God can be restored through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists three conditions for a sin to be considered a mortal sin:
The act in question must involve a grave matter that is carried out with full knowledge and with
complete consent of the will:

• Grave matter “is specified by the Ten Commandments,” that is, it must be a serious violation of
the Divine Law; (CCC 1858)
• Full knowledge “presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to
God’s law”; (CCC 1859)
• Complete consent “implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.” The
deliberate violation of a prohibition is sufficient for a person to have complete consent.
(CCC 1859)

If even one of these three conditions is not met, then the sin is not mortal, but venial.10 Because it
requires full knowledge and complete consent, there is no way to commit a mortal sin by accident.
It is possible, however, to commit a mortal sin without a desire to offend God directly or explicitly.

Venial sin is a less serious act that offends the love of God. While it does not separate us from God
the way a mortal sin does, venial sin weakens our relationship with him. It is recommended that
we confess venial sins frequently in order to avoid mortal sin.

One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed
by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge
or without complete consent. (CCC 1862)

The repetition of sins — even venial sins — can lead to the commission of mortal sins and a life
of vice. Recall the discussion in a previous chapter about the gradual loss of conscience and the
habitual sins that can occur when even small sins and indiscretions accumulate or are repeated
without being confronted through prayer, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, spiritual direction, and
other spiritual efforts.

Sin can be classified in several other ways — by its origin, its intent, its manner, its social or
structural dimension, and its manifestation.
- CLOSE UP -

Comparing Mortal and Venial Sins

When we speak of mortal sin and venial sin, the word “mortal” has the specific connotation of
death and destruction and the notion of “venial” signifies minor injury or a nonfatal effect. Two
analogies — the first of a damaged friendship, the second of an illness — may aptly illustrate the
nature of both mortal and venial sin.

If we were to inflict serious physical harm upon a friend, the friendship would probably be
destroyed, at least until we offered a genuine apology and asked forgiveness. The offended party
likely would accept the apology, and a reconciliation could take place. On the other hand, if we
were to make a rude remark or act irritably with this same friend, it most likely would not cause a
termination of the friendship but would strain the relationship for a while.

Something similar occurs in one’s relationship with Jesus Christ: When an action is so seriously
wrong that it is incompatible with a true friendship with God, that sin is considered mortal and the
relationship with God is broken or severely damaged. A lesser offense, a venial sin, may strain or
otherwise affect the relationship in lesser ways, but not to the point of breaking. An apology is still
in order, and the damage is repaired fairly easily.

Certain illnesses, if not counteracted with medicine or surgical intervention, will eventually lead
to death. Regardless of how many natural means of treatment are employed, an absence of
antibiotics or the necessary surgery may prove fatal. However, there are many other illnesses, like
colds and fevers that do not require any outside intervention because the body has its own natural
defenses to cure itself.

Those sicknesses that are life-threatening in the absence of medical treatment can be likened to
mortal sin, which requires the healing power of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In the case of
venial sin, good deeds performed in a spirit of contrition can dispel its ill effects.

****

CAUSES OF THE LOSS OF THE SENSE OF SIN

Pope Pius XII commented in 1946 that “the sin of the century is the loss of the meaning of sin.”15

For various reasons, many people refuse to acknowledge sin as the source of evil’s presence in the
world, in the family, or in their personal lives. Some mistakenly think that an injustice in speech
or an angry flare-up have no real bearing on God or effect upon the individual in question. Many
have little notion that sin involves a disruption of God’s providential care for man and thereby
harms the person. Among many people, violations of personal dignity through infractions of the
moral law do not even enter the realm of consideration as barriers between God and man. Others
cannot overcome the sense of sin, which ultimately leads to misery, and so choose to reject the
idea of sin or even God himself in their lives.
With the loss of the meaning of sin comes the loss of the sense of sin. Many consider sin as no
more than an idea that puts a label on certain actions based on arbitrary norms of moral conduct.
This insensitivity to both the nature and evil of sin has led to major problems. What would have
been unthinkable in other times has now become widely accepted. Legalized abortion, assisted
suicide, homosexual activity, and the availability of pornography reflect this sad state of affairs.

The secret to establishing Jesus’ kingdom of peace, justice, joy, and freedom is to recover the sense
of sin as a first step in finding moral and spiritual healing. Only by recognizing sin for what it is
can the human person find forgiveness in the merciful heart of Jesus Christ, especially through the
Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Nevertheless, it happens not infrequently in history, for more or less lengthy periods and under the
influence of many different factors, that the moral conscience of many people becomes seriously
clouded. . . . Too many signs indicate that such an eclipse exists in our time. This is all the more
disturbing in that conscience, defined by the Council as “the most secret core and sanctuary of a
man”16 is “strictly related to human freedom. . . . For this reason, conscience, to a great extent,
constitutes the basis of man’s interior dignity, and, at the same time, of his relationship to God.”17
It is inevitable therefore that in this situation there is an obscuring also of the sense of sin, which
is closely connected with the moral conscience, the search for truth and the desire to make a
responsible use of freedom. (Reconciliatio et Pænitentia, 18)

The loss of the meaning of sin represents a great evil for the whole of humanity, not just for the
Christian. In fact, humanity is already suffering greatly because the notion of sin is being lost, and
with it the notion of what is good and evil. A culture that becomes insensitive to such issues
becomes spiritually impoverished and ignorant, since good and evil exist regardless of any denial
or acceptance on the part of society. Here, we recall the words of St. John: “If we say we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”18

The loss of the sense of sin has many contributing causes. The primary causes include moral
relativism, faulty psychology, confusion between what is “moral” and what is “legal,” and secular
humanism.

Moral relativism, which we have touched upon in earlier chapters, is the belief that there are no
objectively good or evil actions, that there exist no moral standards that apply to all situations and
circumstances. According to some, morality is relative to the person, the circumstances, the times,
the culture, and the prevailing opinions.

In moral relativism, the notion of sin becomes irrelevant since it is defined as an infraction of a
law that does not really exist. Violations of sexual morality abound under the guise of prevailing
trends or the expectations of the majority, and these violations are commonly portrayed as
acceptable behavior in many television programs, movies, and in popular music.

Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism.
Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of
teaching,” looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a
dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its
highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pre-Conclave
Homily, Rome, April 18, 2005)

- CLOSE UP -

The Many Faces of Sin

We commonly classify sins as either mortal or venial, but there are several other ways in moral
theology to categorize sin. These are not mutually exclusive, but rather a detailed analysis and
classification — for example, a sin can be mortal, actual, formal, social, external, and a sin of
commission.

These additional five classifications include:

By its origins — Original Sin or actual sin.

Original Sin is the sin of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve at the beginning of human
history. With Original Sin, man lost the state of original holiness and justice in which he had been
created, along with the inner harmony between his mind, his will and his passions. After this “First
Sin,” every person would be destined to die. Every person is born with this sin, together with its
effects that incline a person toward sin. Actual sin is sin committed personally by an individual
through deliberate choice.

By its intent — formal sin or material sin.

A formal sin is a voluntary and freely chosen action contrary to the law of God. In the case of
formal sin, there is culpability. A material sin is an involuntary transgression committed without
either required knowledge or full deliberation. For example, making an innocent statement that is
taken in a hurtful way, or absentmindedly taking an item from someone’s home would not be
formal sins. A material sin is not a culpable transgression because the perpetrator is not aware that
it is a sin.

By its manner — sin of commission or sin of omission.

A sin of commission consists in sinning through something one does, an act or action. A sin of
omission occurs when a required act is deliberately omitted. Jesus speaks exclusively about sins
of omission in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats regarding the Last Judgment.11 The area of
omission in serving one’s neighbor should include a significant part of the examination of
conscience. Limiting the focus on upholding the commandments, to the neglect of an active life of
charity, is a poor caricature of Christian life.

By its social or structural dimension — social sin or structural sin.

Social sin occurs because “by virtue of a human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible
as it is real and concrete, each individual’s sin in some way affects others.”12

A group or society does not commit a sin in unison because it does not have a collective mind and
will that orders the execution of sinful acts. However, every sin is a social sin because it harms the
rest of the body — that is, the Mystical Body of Christ, the people of God, which St. Paul compared
to the various parts of the human body. Sin does not affect only one individual, but rather everyone
suffers from the effects of sin, especially mortal sin:

Consequently one can speak of a communion of sin, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin
drags down with itself the Church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words, there is no
sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, the most strictly individual one, that exclusively
concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm,
every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family. According
to this first meaning of the term, every sin can undoubtedly be considered as social sin.
(Reconciliatio et Pænitentia, 16)

Structural sin is one of the consequences of personal sin that has an ill effect on the community. A
structure of sin comes in the form of a mindset that accepts and justifies a grievously sinful practice
as if it were a right or even a good.13 Certain serious sins that have been frequently committed in
society have eventually gained a general acceptance, creating, as it were, a “structure of sin.” A
common structure of sin is the divorce mentality that leads to the breakdown of marriage, since
marriage is no longer held as an absolute good. Another structure of sin is the legalization of
abortion. Since the destruction of unborn children has been widely accepted, this lamentable
practice has become a structure of sin:

Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness.
“Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil
in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.” (CCC 1869)

By its manifestation — external or internal.

External sin is committed by words or actions, while internal sin is committed through thought or
desire. Hence, evil thoughts, daydreaming, and desires are real sins since they involve sinful
choices that prompt sinful actions that are internal.

To understand the possibility of thoughts and desires becoming sinful, one must realize that
disordered choices can involve either external or internal activity. In fact, every external sin begins
first with an internal sinful thought or desire. Internal sins are clearly condemned by Jesus.14

****

Faulty psychology occurs when the inferences and theories of this otherwise valid behavioral
science go against the moral law. Psychology is a valid science that has made wonderful inroads
in assisting the human person to overcome emotional and mental difficulties. Like any other
discipline, however, it must base its premises and conclusions on objective truth. When the object
of science deals directly with human actions, its moral contents fall within the purview of the moral
teachings of the Church.

In some psychological circles, however, self-control over one’s passions or appetites is labeled as
an unhealthy repression resulting in self-imposed guilt. Certain thinkers characterize the
experience of guilt and shame as an objective evil, when in fact the sense of guilt and shame is
often a product of conscience and therefore a reliable indicator of sin. A psychology that
encourages the expression of anger, self-absorption, or inordinate sexual behavior would be a false
psychology because it would contradict moral truth coming from God himself.

Other psychologists dismiss the concept of sin, attributing disordered choices to insecurity, trauma,
poor upbringing, lack of parental concern, or other factors. Though these factors can be valid
mitigating considerations, in themselves they do not exonerate the individual from the culpability
of sin.

For these psychologists, the effects of sin are seen as psychological disorders that find their remedy
not in the healing graces of Jesus’ Redemption, but in the ventilation of negative feelings and
thoughts and the application of certain mental techniques. While psychology has a very important
role in remedying emotional and personality disorders, it can never serve as a substitute to heal the
effects of sin.

Confusion between what is moral and what is legal: True laws must in some way reflect God’s
eternal law. A law that is derived on some level from the natural law binds us in conscience.
Unfortunately, what is legal is not always morally correct. Therefore, when a civil law violates or
opposes the fundamental tenets of natural law, it must be rejected or disobeyed. The legalization
of abortion constitutes a glaring example of a civil law that contradicts the law of God and warrants
opposition.

Secular Humanism is a philosophy that seeks the improvement of human society through purely
human means, such as scientific advancement, efficient social work, and material welfare.
However, this view of reality rejects any reference to God, religion, or objective moral values.

A secularistic attitude ignores the spiritual component of the human person and therefore has no
concern for moral rectitude and development. The rise in popularity of secular humanism in some
segments of society has also contributed to the loss of the meaning of sin.

As Pope John Paul II noted:

The attempt to set freedom in opposition to truth, and indeed to separate them radically, is the
consequence, manifestation and consummation of another more serious and destructive
dichotomy, that which separates faith from morality.
This separation represents one of the most acute pastoral concerns of the Church amid today’s
growing secularism, wherein many, indeed too many, people think and live “as if God did not
exist.” (Veritatis Splendor, 88)

The very life of the Church is affected by this loss of the sense of sin, as Pope John Paul II
indicated:

Even in the field of the thought and life of the Church certain trends inevitably favor the decline
of the sense of sin. For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with
other exaggerations: from seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from
too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment they pass to preaching a love of God that
excludes any punishment deserved by sin; from severity in trying to correct erroneous consciences
they pass to a kind of respect for conscience which excludes the duty of telling the truth.
(Reconciliatio et Pænitentia, 18)

In the above excerpt, Pope John Paul II alluded to the excessive emphasis on sin and eternal
punishment in times gone by and the other extreme demonstrated by the neglect of due
consideration of sin and a misguided reliance on God’s mercy.

The focus on Jesus Christ’s Revelation of God’s merciful love and readiness to forgive should
never obscure the real existence of sin. The acknowledgement of sin and its destructive effects is
crucial in appreciating the heart of Christ and the magnanimous gift of forgiveness, especially in
the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The loss of the meaning of sin invariably leads to a
misunderstanding and neglect of the role of Christ in his work of salvation.

As an individual faces the challenges resulting from sin, a need for Christ arises since this sad
reality cannot be overcome by one’s own powers. Centering one’s life on Jesus Christ brings a
healthy realization of the effects of sin and the strong hope that it will be conquered. As a person
seriously unites himself to Christ, there is that joyful experience that sin is no match for the grace
of God.

COOPERATION IN EVIL

One may never explicitly or implicitly cooperate in the sin of another. Cooperation in the sin of
another is the help afforded to another in the execution of a sinful purpose. Cooperation may be
formal, implicitly formal, or material:

• Formal cooperation is deliberate cooperation in an evil action or practice. Explicit formal

cooperation is a willing cooperation in the evil act, such as a doctor who assists another doctor in
performing an abortion.
• Implicit formal cooperation does not involve a direct participation in the evil deed, but rather
identifies with the sinful actions by willfully facilitating them. Advising a friend on how best to
shoplift from a store, driving a friend to an abortion facility, allowing friends to have a wild
drinking party in your house, and so on. Though the agent of implicit cooperation does not have a
direct hand in the actual execution of the sin, the consent and cooperation implicate the person in
that same evil action.
• Material cooperation consists of an action that has a role to play in the accomplishment of the
evil deed but lacks the deliberate consent to that same cooperative action. For example, the cashier
in a large store that sells a wide assortment of items may need to collect payment for
contraceptives, and thereby cooperate with the evil action of selling something that violates the
sacredness of human sexuality. In this case, the cashier has no role to play in the decision to make
contraceptives available, and thus would have no authority or influence in stopping their sales. On
the contrary, a cashier in a sporting goods shop would not be morally permitted to sell a handgun
to an individual who looked suspicious and showed signs of anger or instability. In this instance,
due to the suspicious circumstances, the material cooperation would be wrong. Although the
cashier does not intend a possible murder, the sale of a handgun is essential to the act. As seen by
these examples, each case needs to be analyzed separately, and a person under certain conditions
may or may not be morally responsible for the material cooperation in an evil action.

One may never formally cooperate with evil. Material cooperation in evil is only permissible when
there are sufficiently serious reasons, when the cooperation is not essential to the evil action, and
when the agent’s intention is in contradiction to the same evil deed. The culpability of this kind of
cooperation in evil depends on the proximity of the cooperative act to the actual evil action.

We may cooperate in an action that has unintended evil consequences if three conditions are
fulfilled: First, the evil must not be a direct result of the cooperator’s act; second, the cooperator
must not intend the evil that occurs; and third, there must be no possibility of scandal.

A bus driver whose route passes an abortion facility knows from experience that at least some of
the women he has picked up or dropped off at the bus stop nearest the facility probably have had
abortions. The driver disapproves of abortion, and his contribution to the abortions is not a direct
result of his employment as a bus driver. In this case, the bus driver is not committing a sin,
although there is a very remote level of cooperation in evil. Thus, the more remote the cooperation
in evil, the less culpable the act.

EFFECTS OF SIN

Concerning the effects of mortal and venial sins, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the
following:

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man . . . ; it turns man away from God, who is his
ultimate end and his beatitude. . . .
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. (CCC 1855)

Effects of mortal sin. The principal effect of mortal sin is the loss of sanctifying grace together
with the theological virtue of charity. Someone who has committed mortal sin has turned away
from God in such a way that he has lost friendship with God. If an individual persists in this state,
he incurs upon himself eternal damnation. The person in the state of mortal sin by his dispositions
and actions has at least implicitly opted for eternal punishment which essentially consists in a
permanent separation from God.

While a person is in the state of sanctifying grace, his good deeds merit an increase in sanctifying
grace. The graces gained by these meritorious acts are lost upon committing mortal sin. This loss
of grace occurs because the sanctifying grace merited through holy actions is completely
relinquished through this choice of turning away from Jesus Christ.

It follows, then, that while an individual is in the state of mortal sin, he cannot merit any more
grace until his mortal sin is remitted through the Sacrament of Penance. Upon being reconciled
with God, the previous state of grace acquired through Baptism and augmented through
meritorious deeds is fully restored.

An interior emptiness and profound disillusionment visit the person in mortal sin. With mortal sin
comes a loss of freedom, where one becomes enslaved to the passions and falls under the sway of
the Evil One. Worst of all, the individual finds himself alienated from God and the everlasting life
that awaits him.

Like a cancer that spreads throughout the body unless removed, mortal sin acts like an aggressive
malignant tumor, quickly eating away at the subject’s moral life. It is regretfully common that a
person who persists in a mortally sinful state will commit other mortal sins before long, and even
more serious ones. For example, a person who views impure images or watches immoral programs
is more readily prompted to drink immoderately, become self-centered, lose ability for prayer, and
become angry and cruel. Heinous crimes and heartrending family strife find their origins in the
loss of union with God through mortal sins.

One in a state of mortal sin must make a sincere Confession to be assured of being restored to the
state of grace.

Effects of venial sin. One of the effects of deliberate venial sin is lukewarmness regarding the
practice of the Gospel message. Venial sin dulls charity and interest in following Christ and renders
the practice of the new commandment to love as Christ loved virtually impossible.

Venial sin stifles one’s pursuit of a saintly life. If left unchecked, venial sin prepares the way to
committing mortal sin by gradually eroding the love of God.

CONVERSION AND FORGIVENESS

The call to conversion is the central theme of the preaching of St. John the Baptist, who sees
repentance as the preparation for the coming of the Messiah.20 The public ministry of Jesus also
began with the call to conversion: “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand;
repent, and believe in the gospel.”21

Forgiveness is exemplified by narratives of Zacchæus, the tax collector; the adulterous woman;
the Good Thief; the Samaritan woman; and the public sinner who is forgiven much because “she
loved much.”22 There are, then, no lost causes for “the Son of man [who] came to seek and to save
the lost.”23

The call to conversion is a key theme in Jesus Christ’s public ministry:

It is the Gospel which reveals the full truth about man and his moral journey, and thus enlightens
and admonishes sinners; it proclaims to them God’s mercy, which is constantly at work to preserve
them both from despair at their inability to fully know and keep God’s law and from the
presumption that they can be saved without merit. God also reminds sinners of the joy of
forgiveness, which alone grants the strength to see in the moral law a liberating truth, a grace-filled
source of hope, a path of life. (Veritatis Splendor, 112)

“The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God.”24 Since the grace of
conversion is a gift of God, “no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.”25
Our justification was earned by the suffering, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and is
bestowed freely in Baptism. Through grace, we receive the forgiveness of sin and sanctification
and become adopted sons and daughters of God.

Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away
from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high. (CCC 2018)

God comes to us and offers us his gift of redemption. God, however, in his plan of salvation, has
chosen to associate us with his work of grace. By responding to his call and by cooperating with
him, we can merit graces for ourselves and others. This includes not only spiritual goods, but
temporal goods such as health and friendships.26 In this manner, we can say that any merit we
receive from our good works is due, first and foremost, to the grace of God, and only secondly to
our active collaboration with him.27

The many conversion accounts found in the Gospel beautifully attest to God’s infinite mercy
revealed in the heart of Christ. From these wonderful interchanges between the Lord and the
repentant sinners, a special aspect of sin comes to the fore. The Lord is offended by sin not because
he incurs pain, but rather because of the damage brought upon ourselves. A lover will suffer on
account of an injury suffered by the beloved. Sin damages a person’s relationship with God and,
consequently, his true happiness. This reality unlocks the mystery of God’s love that was
marvelously displayed in Jesus’ Passion and Death on the Cross.

- CLOSE UP -

God Forgives, So Why Confess?

Many have raised the question: “Why can’t God forgive us without having to go to confession?”

It is true that God can forgive sins however he pleases. He is not constrained by the sacraments
that he himself instituted through Christ. However, as followers of Christ, Christians cannot pick
and choose how to be forgiven according to their own personal interests. Instead, they must follow
those means given to them by Christ himself.

Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation by instructing his Apostles to forgive sins.19 This
means that the penitent must seek God’s forgiveness through his appointed ministers. The priest
will absolve the penitent as long as there is sufficient repentance for the confessed sins and
sufficient resolve to sin no more.

In addition to the spiritual benefits, this personal confession corresponds to the needs of the human
person. We all have the need to unburden ourselves and to open our hearts, especially regarding
actions that inflict painful guilt and regret of conscience. What better way is there of gaining the
assurance of forgiveness and the knowledge that we are loved unconditionally by God than in
hearing the words of Christ himself, spoken by the priest, “Your sins are forgiven”?

In light of the marvelous benefits of sacramental Confession to the spiritual life, individuals should
avail themselves habitually and frequently of this Sacrament — monthly or even weekly. Joy,
peace of mind, better preparation for Holy Communion, and greater sensitivity of conscience are
a few of the benefits that will result from the reception of this Sacrament.

****

THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION

God the Father in his infinite mercy sent his beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer and die on the
Cross for our sins. The power of Christ’s Death and Resurrection are such that every sin, no matter
how grievous, can be forgiven and taken away. In its teachings on justification, the Council of
Trent profoundly explains the power of the Passion of Christ in removing sin:

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It
conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and
of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy. (Council of
Trent, DS 1529)

Justification involves the removal of the offense of sin by reason of Christ’s sacrificial offering on
the Cross. Before his redemptive Death and Resurrection, Original Sin, together with personal
sins, left every individual alienated from God. This rift caused by sin was removed by Christ’s
suffering, Death, and Resurrection. The merits gained by Christ restored the relationship intended
by God in creation. Justice or justification has been achieved because a supreme and acceptable
sacrifice was offered for us. In Baptism, we are justified, receiving sanctifying grace and new life
in Christ.

God’s love is so infinite and unconditional that he glories in forgiving us. The superabundant grace
of forgiveness obtained by Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice is especially channeled through the
Sacraments of Baptism and Reconciliation. Upon reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, the
merits of Christ’s Death and Resurrection which are applied to the subject remove Original Sin
and all personal sin. At the same time, the individual is inserted into the life of Christ and receives
the infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity, together with the infused moral virtues and gifts of
the Holy Spirit (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the
Lord). All sins committed after Baptism can be forgiven through the Sacrament of Reconciliation
through those same merits Christ won on the Cross.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you
forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (Jn
20: 22– 23)

The forgiveness of mortal sin and the subsequent removal of its destructive effects require recourse
to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. For this Sacrament to restore a person to a state of grace, the
person must have contrition and purpose of amendment, confessing all mortal sins, both in kind
and number.

The confession of the specific kind of sin would involve giving enough of a description for the
priest to assess the proper gravity and accountability for the sin. For example, there is a difference
in gravity between confessing, “I didn’t respect my parents as I should,” and to say that, “I shouted
at and insulted my parents.” Again, there is a difference between saying, “I lacked purity,” and, “I
looked at pornographic images.” The person should also give a number or estimate the frequency
of specific mortal sins, since it is not the same to do something only once as opposed to many
times or habitually.

A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins
committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor
acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent
examination of conscience. (CIC, 988 § 1)

Since venial sin does not sever one’s friendship with Christ, its forgiveness or removal does not
require the Sacrament of Reconciliation per se. This means that personal acts of contrition or
efforts to follow Christ’s teachings with implicit repentance can serve as a means for forgiveness.
Nevertheless, the frequent confession even of venial sins is highly recommended.

The opportunity to be cleansed from sin through the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a great blessing
and consolation. Many attest to the great relief and happiness of receiving forgiveness and having
one’s relationship with God restored. It is wonderful to realize that God will always give us his
forgiving and healing embrace as long as we are contrite in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Not
only is it spiritually salutary to go to Confession, but it is also rewarding to experience the positive
effects of unburdening oneself and having personal dignity restored.

CONTRITION

The forgiveness of sins results directly from God’s gratuitous mercy. Without the Son of God
becoming man and dying on the Cross, we would be mired in sin without hope of liberation or
salvation.

Nevertheless, as illustrated in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the Lord needs our sorrow or
contrition in order to forgive us. It was only when the prodigal son approached his Father, saying,
“Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your
son,”28 that reconciliation and restoration of his sonship took place.

We will also recall from the story that the father never stopped looking for his son, and that once
the son appeared, the father ran out to meet him. Likewise, God never stops loving us and giving
us the grace to return to him. But, he leaves us free and asks that we take a step toward forgiveness.
In the process of reconciliation, God’s grace is indeed the most vital element. Nevertheless,
personal sorrow for sin and the willingness to try to sin no more are indispensable. This sorrow
for having offended God along with the firm purpose of avoiding sin is called contrition. Without
contrition, a person cannot be forgiven, even in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

There are two types of contrition, perfect contrition and imperfect contrition.

Perfect contrition is sorrow that springs from a perfect love for God. It forgives sins immediately,
even before we go to Confession — although, naturally, a perfect contrition will always include
the intention to confess one’s sins as soon as possible. However, because no one can be certain
that he or she has perfect contrition, it is necessary to go to Confession anyway.

Imperfect contrition is sorrow for our sins not out of perfect love, but because we fear God’s
punishment. It is not true contrition if we are merely ashamed of our dishonor, or sorry only for
the punishment we may incur from other persons, or just sorry that we got caught. Imperfect
contrition does not forgive sins immediately, but is sufficient to obtain forgiveness when
accompanied by sacramental absolution.

Included in the spirit of contrition is the commitment to avoid near occasions of sin. Near occasions
of sin are situations and circumstances that will most likely entice an individual to sin.

These occasions of sin can be certain persons, places, or things that can easily prompt one to sin.
Occasions may include going to a party where alcohol is known to be available, when one has a
tendency to drink to excess; a boyfriend and girlfriend spending time alone, when privacy makes
sexual temptation more likely to arise; hanging around with a certain group of friends whose foul
language and bad habits may have a negative moral influence through peer pressure.

Common sense tells us that avoiding situations where sin is more likely to occur is the best way to
reduce temptations and maintain virtue. A firm resolve to avoid sin warrants greater attention to
staying away from opportunities for trouble. Contrition is not completely genuine and honest if it
does not include a purpose of amendment and a willingness to stay out of harm’s way, when
overpowering temptations abound.

THE LAST THINGS

The Christian life is a journey towards God. It begins with Baptism, when we are incorporated
into Christ and become adopted sons and daughters of God. It continues as we grow in the Faith,
which is a process of progressive identification with Jesus Christ. Through prayer and the
sacraments, our relationship with God continues to be nurtured. Through the work of the Holy
Spirit, we are strengthened to follow the moral teachings of Christ, our moral compass, who guides
us toward salvation.

The friendship or communion with God that a Christian experiences in this life fulfills the desires
of the human heart and gives tremendous joy. This, however, is but a foretaste of the complete
happiness that awaits us in Heaven, the proper destination and goal of the Christian journey. The
ultimate hope of a child of God, therefore, is not glory and prosperity in this world, but eternal
communion and happiness with God in Heaven.

“By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men.”29 The salvation that Christ won for
us is offered to all people. However, this gift of salvation requires a response on our part. We
respond by our faith and works. In creating our first parents, God endowed them with the gift of
free will. While God calls each person into his friendship, each person is given the freedom to
accept God’s gift of salvation or to ignore or reject it.

The personal decision to accept the salvation offered by God and to follow the moral teachings of
Jesus Christ must be made in this life, for at death, the time in which we have to choose is ended.

Death is the end of earthly life. Our lives are measured by time, in the course of which we change,
grow old and, as with all living beings on earth, death seems like the normal end of life. That aspect
of death lends urgency to our lives: remembering our mortality helps us realize that we have only
a limited time in which to bring our lives to fulfillment. (CCC 1007)

Particular Judgment

Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in
a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead. (CCC 1051)

At the moment of death, Christ will judge each person for the choices and actions he or she made
in his or her life. This is referred to as the particular judgment. If we die seeking God, in a state of
grace, we shall enjoy his friendship for all eternity. If we die having rejected God, in a state of
mortal sin, then we shall be separated from him for all eternity.

It is sometimes easy to become focused only on the things of this life. Our responsibilities, cares,
and worries often occupy our days, preventing us from keeping the true goal of the Christian life
in the forefront of our minds. By reflecting on the truth that each of us shall one day stand before
Christ in the particular judgment to answer for each of our thoughts, words, and deeds, should lead
us to better evaluate the choices we make in this life.

The best preparation for the particular judgment is to realize that we are continually in the presence
of God, who sees our actions, hears our words, and knows our thoughts. Through a daily
examination of conscience, we can evaluate our lives and make the required spiritual changes.
Through the frequent reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, a person, in a certain sense,
anticipates the particular judgment that he or she will receive after death.30 “In converting to Christ
through penance and faith, the sinner passes from death to life and ‘does not come into
judgment.’”31

At the moment of the particular judgment, the eternal fate of our souls is decided. We will be
destined for eternal communion with God in Heaven, either directly or following the purification
of our soul in Purgatory, or for eternal separation from God in Hell.
Heaven

Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ.
They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face.32 (CCC 1023)

Those who have responded to God’s gift of salvation, die in a state of grace, and have been
perfectly purified, either in this life or in Purgatory, will live in the company of God forever.
Heaven is the state of eternal happiness in which a person shares in the life and love of the Blessed
Trinity. In communion with the angels and saints, a soul enjoys a state of perfect happiness,33 and
in the Kingdom of God, the saints will reign with Christ forever.

This perfect communion with God in Heaven is a mystery of the Faith that is beyond human
understanding. “Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the
kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise.”34

However, these analogies pale in comparison to the joy that actually awaits the blessed in Heaven.
In this life, we cannot see God in his magnificence. His presence is veiled. Only through Divine
Revelation received in faith can we have an understanding of the happiness that will be enjoyed in
Heaven.

What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for
those who love him. (1 Cor 2: 9)

In Heaven, the blessed will see God face-to-face and contemplate him in the fullness of glory. This
is called the “beatific vision.”

Purgatory

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their
eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary
to enter the joy of heaven. (CCC 1030)
Sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes
us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the
other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be
purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one
from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin.35 (CCC 1472)

Those who die in a state of grace (in God’s friendship) are assured of eternal life with God in
Heaven. If, however, there is any remaining temporal punishment due to sin not yet remitted, it
must be purified before entering Heaven. This purification of the temporal punishment due for
sins, after death, is called Purgatory. By purifying us of all imperfections before we enter his
presence in Heaven, God is showing us not only his justice but also his great love and mercy.

Since all temporal punishment due to sin must be satisfied before a soul, in the state of grace, may
enter into the presence of God in Heaven, we should strive to repair the damage caused by sin in
this life. God provides us this opportunity through works of mercy and charity, prayer, the
sacramental life, mortification, and other penitential practices.36

The faithful are also offered the possibility of gaining indulgences, which is the remission of the
temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. A partial indulgence remits part of the temporal
punishment due to sin, while a plenary indulgence remits all of the temporal punishment due to
sin.37 The prescribed conditions for gaining an indulgence require that a person have the proper
disposition. For a plenary indulgence, this includes being free from all attachment to sin, including
venial sin.

Indulgences may be applied by a person to remit his or her own temporal punishment due to sin,
or may be applied for the benefit of the holy souls in Purgatory, who are greatly aided by the
prayers and sacrifices that are offered for them.

From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage
for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific
vision of God.38 (CCC 1032)

The practice of praying and offering sacrifice for the dead finds its origin in the Old Testament.
“Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from
their sin.”39

The Church reminds us of our obligation to pray for the holy souls in Purgatory and offer masses
on their behalf. This spiritual practice is especially remembered in the masses of All Souls Day
(The Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed), celebrated on November 2, and is found in the
spiritual works of mercy, which remind us to pray for the living and the dead. Believing in the
communion of saints, we can be assured that when they enter the presence of God in Heaven, they
will remember those who offered prayers for them.

Hell

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining
separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from
communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” (CCC 1033)

All souls in Hell suffer the loss of eternal communion with God and also suffer punishments
according to the sins they committed here on earth. This state of separation from God is eternal,
and there can be no repentance. Just as the blessed will enjoy eternal love and joy, those in Hell
will suffer eternal hatred and unhappiness. With Satan and his demons, as well as the other lost
souls, those in Hell will only be able to express hatred and despair for turning away from God.

Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna,” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of
their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. 40 Jesus
solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw
them into the furnace of fire,”41 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me,
you cursed, into the eternal fire!”42 (CCC 1034)
The Last Judgment and the Kingdom of God

When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his
glorious throne. (Mt 25: 31)

In the Creed, we profess the belief that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead.
This is known as the General or Last Judgment. When Christ returns, all shall rise in their own
bodies, and all things shall be revealed. At that time, we shall see with clarity God’s mercy and
justice. We shall see the secret disposition of our hearts and the effects of all of our good and bad
deeds. Each person shall be rewarded or punished according to what he or she has done in this life
“according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.”43 The faithful shall be glorified in body and soul
and shall reign with Christ in the Kingdom of God.44

“We believe that the souls of all who die in Christ’s grace . . . are the People of God beyond death.
On the day of resurrection, death will be definitively conquered, when these souls will be reunited
with their bodies.”45 (CCC 1052)

God’s plan of redemption to establish the Kingdom of God on earth will come to its fullness at the
end of time.46 The Church will be perfected and the universe transformed into a heavenly city, a
New Jerusalem, and God will live among his people.47

Keeping our eye on our eternal destination helps us to choose the correct course while on earth.
Christ has shown us the way, but we must respond to his gift of salvation and follow him.

The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a
call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal
destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the
gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For
the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”48
(CCC 1036)

CONCLUSION

Today, in a period of history in which the reality of sin is being denied and a general indifference
to moral evil prevails, it is particularly important that the Christian strives to be Christlike in his
conduct among others.

Christians, by virtue of Baptism, have a mission to be witnesses to the truth. Sin has always existed,
and Christ will always be there to forgive sinners and bring them back. The surest way to
evangelize others is to strive to imitate Christ in all of one’s actions. Through God’s grace, personal
holiness is possible for all faithful members of the Church.

However, personal holiness first requires personal conversion to a greater union with Christ and a
greater desire and commitment to reject one’s sinful ways.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son expresses in a simple but profound way the reality of conversion.
Conversion is the most concrete expression of the working of love and of the presence of mercy
in the human world.
The Church professes and proclaims conversion. Conversion to God always consists of
discovering his mercy — that is, in discovering that love which is patient and kind49 as only the
Creator and Father can be; the love to which the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”50 is
faithful to the uttermost consequences in the history of his covenant with man: even to the Cross
and to the Death and Resurrection of the Son. Conversion to God is always the fruit of the
“rediscovery” of this Father, who is rich in mercy. (Dives in Misericordia, 6, 13)

SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS

1. All Sin is an Offense against God

It is not difficult to see how certain sins — idolatry, for example — offend God. But all immoral
acts offend God. Treating one’s neighbor unfairly is an offense against God. But why? How is it
that every kind of immorality concerns God?
In considering this question, it is necessary to put aside anthropomorphic notions. God is not
offended as we are. He does not get angry in the way we do, his feelings are not hurt, he does not
suffer wounded pride. Yet our sins do offend him. How?
We begin by considering our relationship with God in the context of the covenant. God offers us
the covenant for our good, for the sake of our human well-being. When we do moral evil, we act
against God’s love, contrary to his will. Even apart from the covenant, moreover, one who sins
sets aside reason and so implicitly sets aside God, the source and meaning and value in creation.
Sinners, as it were, declare their independence of anything beyond themselves, including God. In
that sense, too, sin is an offense against God.
— Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw,
Fulfillment in Christ, p. 154.

2. Aristotle on Happiness

Verbally, there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior
refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and faring well with being happy; but
with regard to what happiness is, they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the
wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honor; they
differ, however, from one another — and often even the same man identifies it with different
things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance,
they admire those who proclaim some great thing that is above their comprehension . . .Men of
this kind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts. . . . A
consideration of the prominent types of life shows that . . . according to them, at any rate, virtue is
better.
— Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, I, 4– 5.

3. The Abandonment of the Moral Law

Sin has become almost everywhere today one of those subjects that is not spoken about. Religious
education of whatever kind does its best to evade it. Theater and films use the word ironically or
in order to entertain. Sociology and psychology attempt to unmask it as an illusion or a complex.
Even the law is trying to get by more and more without the concept of guilt. It prefers to make use
of sociological language, which turns the concept of good and evil into statistics and in its place
distinguishes between normative and non-normative behavior. Implicit here is the possibility that
the statistical proportions will themselves change: what is presently non-normative could one day
become the rule; indeed, perhaps one should even strive to make the non-normative normal.
In such an atmosphere of quantification, the whole idea of the moral has accordingly been
generally abandoned. This is a logical development if it is true that there is no standard for human
beings to use as a model — something not discovered by us but coming from the inner goodness
of creation.
— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, In The Beginning, pp. 78– 79

4. Law and Ethical Relativism

In any case, in the democratic culture of our time, it is commonly held that the legal system of any
society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It
should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually
practices. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable,
then respect for the freedom of the citizens — who in a democratic system are considered the true
rulers — would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be
acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms that are absolutely necessary for
social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this
may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private
conscience from that of public conduct.
As a result, we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand,
individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and
demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to
guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not
infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the
exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people’s freedom of choice requires
that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the
citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one’s duties, the only moral
criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over
to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere.
At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-
day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy,
inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance
of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are
held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.
But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and
contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.
It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of “truth.”
But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still
being committed in the name of “ethical relativism.” When a parliamentary or social majority
decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really
making a “tyrannical” decision with regard to the weakest and most defenseless of human beings?
Everyone’s conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had
such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by
unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?
Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for
immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its
“moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every
other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the
morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost
universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive “sign
of the times,” as the Church’s Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy
stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the
dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the
adoption of the “common good” as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly
fundamental and not to be ignored.
The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable “majority” opinions, but only the
acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the “natural law” written in the human heart,
is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the
collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the
fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its
foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing
interests on a purely empirical basis.
Some might think that even this function, in the absence of anything better, should be valued for
the sake of peace in society. While one acknowledges some element of truth in this point of view,
it is easy to see that without an objective moral grounding not even democracy is capable of
ensuring a stable peace, especially since peace which is not built upon the values of the dignity of
every individual and of solidarity between all people frequently proves to be illusory. Even in
participatory systems of government, the regulation of interests often occurs to the advantage of
the most powerful, since they are the ones most capable of maneuvering not only the levers of
power but also of shaping the formation of consensus. In such a situation, democracy easily
becomes an empty word.
— Evangelium Vitæ, 69– 70.

5. Sin is a Personal Act

Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an
individual person, and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned,
incited, and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to
tendencies, defects, and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases, such external
and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the guilt. But it is a truth of faith,
also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be
disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures,
systems, or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which
are manifested — even though in a negative and disastrous way — also in this responsibility for
sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit
for virtue or responsibility for sin.
As a personal act, sin has its first and most important consequences in the sinner himself: that is,
in his relationship with God, who is the very foundation of human life; and also in his spirit,
weakening his will and clouding his intellect.
— Reconciliatio et Pænitentia, 16

6. On Certain Aspects of the Celebration of the

Sacrament of Penance

In order that the minister of the Sacrament may know the dispositions of penitents with a view to
granting or withholding absolution and imposing a suitable penance, it is necessary that the
faithful, as well as being aware of the sins they have committed, of being sorry for them and
resolved not to fall into them again, should also confess their sins. In this sense, the Council of
Trent declared that it is necessary “by divine decree to confess each and every mortal sin.” The
Church has always seen an essential link between the judgement entrusted to the priest in the
Sacrament and the need for penitents to name their own sins, except where this is not possible.
Since, therefore, the integral confession of serious sins is by divine decree a constitutive part of
the Sacrament, it is in no way subject to the discretion of pastors (dispensation, interpretation, local
customs, etc.). In the relevant disciplinary norms, the competent ecclesiastical authority merely
indicates the criteria for distinguishing a real impossibility of confessing one’s sins from other
situations in which the impossibility is only apparent or can be surmounted.
3. Since “the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, all grave sins
committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have
not yet been directly remitted by the Church’s power of the keys, nor acknowledged in individual
confession,” any practice which restricts confession to a generic accusation of sin or of only one
or two sins judged to be more important is to be reproved. Indeed, in view of the fact that all the
faithful are called to holiness, it is recommended that they confess venial sins also.
— Pope John Paul II, Misericordia Dei
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on April 7, the Second Sunday of Easter, the Feast of Divine
Mercy, in the year of our Lord 2002, the twenty-fourth of my Pontificate.

ADVANCED CONCEPTS

Mortal, Grave, or Venial?

Some people have recently advocated a threefold division of sin: mortal, grave, and venial.

• Mortal sins are done in express and direct rebellion against God. Such sins, according to these
authors, are very rare, and only these sinful actions can separate people from God.
• Grave sins, on the other hand, are a lesser species of serious sin, closer to venial sins, but still
somewhat distinct because the matter is more serious or the subject more malicious. These sins are
committed only out of weakness.
• Venial sins, like grave sins, are committed primarily out of weakness or habit, but involve neither
a direct rebellion against God nor a matter that is serious nor a subject that is malicious.

The Magisterium of the Church has responded to this triple distinction, saying it has no foundation
in Scripture, which specifies only two classes of sin. Consequently, mortal and “grave” sins are
identical. Serious sins do admit of a difference in degree. For example, blasphemy against God is
more serious than sins against charity toward one’s neighbor, which itself admits differences in
degree, as insulting one’s neighbor as a result of hatred would be less grievous than physical harm
inflicted on him or her for the same reason. Nonetheless, all separate a person from God, and are,
therefore, serious sins.

This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave
sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which
destroys charity, and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: there is no middle way between
life and death. (Reconciliatio et Pænitentia, 17)

VOCABULARY

ACTUAL SIN

A thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to God’s eternal law. It is a human act that presumes
(a) knowledge of wrongdoing, (b) awareness of malice in one’s conduct and (c) consent of the
will. It damages a person’s relationship with God.

ATTRITION

Imperfect contrition resulting from being sorry for sins due to fear of God’s punishment.

COMPLETE CONSENT

Consent given so freely and deliberately that an action becomes a personal choice.

CONVERSION

A radical reorientation of one’s whole life away from sin and evil and toward God. This is a central
element of Christ’s preaching, of the Church’s ministry of evangelization, and of the Sacrament of
Penance.

FORMAL COOPERATION

A deliberate assistance to another person in the commission of evil.

FORMAL SIN
Sin that is freely and deliberately committed. It involves knowledge of the evil of the act and
freedom to avoid it.

GRAVE MATTER

An object or circumstance having serious weight or importance.

HABITUAL SIN

A permanent state of culpability caused by the frequent commission of actual sins.

IDOLATRY

The worship or adoration due God alone paid to images “made with hands” or any created object;
this is forbidden by the First Commandment. This is distinct from veneration given to saints and
holy objects implicitly allowed by the Incarnation as defined at the Seventh Ecumenical Council
(Nicæa II, AD 787).

IMPERFECT CONTRITION

Sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed together with the resolution not to sin
again as a result of fear of God's punishment rather than out of love of God.

INCARNATION

From the Latin for “to make flesh.” The mystery of the hypostatic union of the divine and human
natures in the one divine Person, the Word, Jesus Christ. To bring about man's salvation, the Son
of God was made flesh (cf. John 1: 14) and became truly man.

INTRINSIC EVIL

An act that is evil in and of itself and never justifiable, regardless of situation or circumstance.

JUSTICE

One of the four cardinal virtues, this refers to observance of the Divine Law. This virtue is used to
render to God and each person his or her due.

MATERIAL COOPERATION

An action that plays a role in an evil deed but lacks the deliberate consent to that same cooperative
action.

MATERIAL SIN

An act that is sinful but does not admit culpability because of ignorance.
MORTAL SIN

A grave offense against God that destroys a person's relationship with him by severing him or her
from divine love. It destroys charity in the heart of man; it turns man away from God, who is his
ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

NUMERICAL DISTINCTION

The concrete number of acts that are committed contrary to a virtue or precept.

OCCASION OF SIN

A person, place, thing, or situation that generally leads to temptation.

PASSION

The suffering and Death of Jesus.

PERFECT CONTRITION

Sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed together with the resolution not to sin
again as a result of being sorry for sins due to a love for God above all else.

PERSONAL SIN

Sin that results from deliberation and an act of the will with knowledge.

PHYSICAL EVIL

An evil that is committed by an action as opposed to a thought or an interior attitude.

RECONCILIATION (Sacrament of)

Also called Penance or Confession. The Sacrament by which Christ forgives sins. Jesus gave his
Apostles — who passed it on to their successors down to this day — the power to forgive and
retain sins. This Sacrament is administered only by bishops and priests.

REDEMPTION

Literally meaning "being bought back," the act by which Jesus Christ, through his sacrificial Death
on the Cross, set us free from the slavery of sin, thus redeeming or "buying us back" from the
power of the Devil.

REPENTANCE

True sorrow for one’s own sins and the firm resolution to avoid all sin in the future.
SALVATION

The Redemption of our souls and the promise of Heaven brought about by the Death and
Resurrection of Jesus, our discipleship in Christ, and our commitment to seeking holiness and
avoiding sin.

SIN

A transgression of the Divine Law and an offense against God involving the individual’s
knowledge and will.

SIN OF COMMISSION

Sin by means of committing an evil act such as theft or murder.

SIN OF OMISSION

Sin by means of failure to commit a good act such as attend Mass on Sunday or forgive a sinner.
Willful neglect or positive refusal to perform some good action, such as attending Mass, that one's
conscience urges one to do.

SOCIAL SIN

The corporate effect of personal sins on the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.

SPECIFIC DISTINCTION

The categorization of sins according to the specific virtues they violate.

STRUCTURES OF SIN

Social sin that has become widely accepted and sometimes even supported by civil law.

VENIAL SIN

An offense against the law and love of God that does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace. It
does, however, weaken person’s love for God and neighbor.

QUESTIONS

1. In regard to sin, in what way were Adam and Eve created differently from any of their
descendants except for Jesus and Mary?
2. Describe the original state of holiness enjoyed by Adam and Eve before the Fall.
3. What was the Original Sin? In what way are the sins that we commit today comparable to
Original Sin?
4. What does the sin of Adam and Eve have to do with us? When do its effects begin in our lives?
5. What are the effects of Original Sin in our lives? What are some concrete manifestations of this
sin?
6. If God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, introducing evil into the world, why would he create
us?
7. Explain the term “physical evil.”
8. In what way are humans sometimes responsible for natural or physical evils?
9. Define “moral evil.”
10. Explain the following statement. “One can make a case that the majority of suffering in the
world is caused much more by moral evil than by physical evil.”
11. What is St. Augustine’s definition of sin?
12. What is the “natural law”?
13. What are the effects of violating natural law?
14. What is the “moral law”? Where can one find the “moral law”?
15. Explain Original Sin in terms of St. Augustine’s definition.
16. Explain how one can sin without the direct intent to offend God.
17. Explain Original Sin in terms of St. Aquinas’ second definition.
18. What does it mean that all sin is a form of idolatry?
19. How does placing God second in our lives affect the human person?
20. How was sin viewed in the Old Testament? Explain the analogy.
21. Viewed in this light, what are the consequences of Israel’s sins?
22. Explain how sin is much more divinely personalized in the New Testament.
23. Explain how viewing sin as a “simple infraction of some moral guideline” misses the true
meaning of sin.
24. Explain how sin is a personal act.
25. What does it mean that “one cannot sin by accident”?
26. Would it be proper to speak of the sins of the Nazis or the German people in World War II?
Explain. How might one’s environment mitigate a person’s culpability for sin? Can it ever remove
one’s culpability for sin? Explain.
27. What is the primary difference in the effects of mortal and venial sins?
28. What elements are necessary for a sin to be considered a mortal sin? Using these guidelines,
explain why, or why not, an adulterous affair would be a mortal sin.
29. What are the effects of venial sin? Should we really be concerned about venial sins? Explain.
30. A mortal sin is a turning away from God. What is the ultimate result of persistence in mortal
sin?
31. What is the means given to us for the forgiveness of mortal sins?
32. What are the results of sin to both the individual committing the sin, and to others? What are
the consequences when something is no longer regarded as a sin?
33. Define moral relativism.
34. Explain the faulty reasoning behind the statement, “This is the twenty-first century,” which is
sometimes used to explain why a “sin” is actually acceptable.
35. What would be the result of each person deciding for himself or herself what is “moral” for
him or her?
36. Some psychologists claim that in order to avoid guilt and shame we must convince ourselves
that the underlying actions causing them are not wrong. Following this idea to its logical
conclusion, what would happen to society if this attitude were adopted by everyone?
37. Some people attribute every wrong-doing to bad circumstances (e.g., a bad upbringing). While
circumstances do affect our behavior, what would happen if no one was ever held accountable for
his or her actions?
38. What are some examples in which Americans confuse what is legal with what is moral?
39. What is the obligation of Christians in a society where a particular law contradicts moral law?
40. What is the primary error of the secularistic attitude? What will result if we try to solve all
human problems (i.e., to make people happy) without any reference to God?
41. What are the results of the two exaggerated attitudes regarding sin: sin is everywhere, and sin
does not exist? What is the correct attitude?
42. What is the difference between Original Sin and actual sin?
43. What is the difference between a formal sin and a material sin? Is a person “guilty” if he or she
commits a “material sin”? Using the examples of material sins found in this section, what should
a person do if he or she commits a material sin?
44. Why can a society or group not commit a sin? What is meant then by social sins?
45. What are “structures of sin”? What are their harmful effects on society?
46. Explain why internal sins (e.g., impure thoughts, etc.) are wrong.
47. Understanding that sins harm not only the person committing them, but also others, explain
why cooperation in an evil act is wrong.
48. What is the difference between formal and material cooperation?
49. When might a person not be culpable for a material cooperation in a sin?
50. What is repentance, and why is it necessary for forgiveness?
51. What is the source of forgiveness?
52. What is the means used by Jesus Christ to infuse sanctifying grace lost through Original Sin?
What is the means instituted by Christ to restore sanctifying grace lost by mortal sins committed
after Baptism?
53. Venial sins may be forgiven by good works based on personal contrition. What, then, is the
value of confessing venial sins?
54. List several of the spiritual benefits which come from the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
55. If God can forgive us in any manner that he chooses, why should a person go to Confession?
56. What is contrition, and why is it necessary for forgiveness?
57. If sins can be forgiven by “perfect contrition,” why go to Confession?
58. What is the difference between imperfect contrition and perfect contrition?

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

1. Read the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In parables, Jesus used people or things as analogies. Who
are the characters in the parable, and who do they represent? What does the parable teach us about
God and freedom? In the parable, what would be the definition of sin? What are the results of sin?
What does it tell us about forgiveness from both the point of view of God and a sinner? What does
it tell us should be the attitude of Christians toward a sinner who seeks forgiveness?
2. “Sin is much more divinely personalized in the New Testament.” In the movie The Passion of
Christ, the director, Mel Gibson, appeared only once. It was he who hammered the nail into Jesus’
hand. How can it be said that we do the same every time that we sin? How might our actions be
different if we considered this truth?
3. It is common to hear people in modern society blame “the Church” for certain historical
injustices that were committed against particular groups of people. Explain how this reasoning is
flawed.
4. Do people in modern society have a certain obligation to repair the damage incurred by injustices
committed by their ancestors? Why?
5. Using the analogy of sickness, unless an injury or disease is properly diagnosed it cannot be
cured. Apply the analogy to Pope Pius XII’s comment that “the sin of the century is the loss of the
meaning of sin.”
6. Read the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (cf. Mt 25: 1– 46). What are the things that
Christians must not omit if they want to be a follower of Christ? Think of others which might be
added to the list. According to the Parable, what is the true motive of Christian behavior toward
others? Why do you think that Jesus concentrated more on sins of omission than on sins of
commission? What would be the result if all Christians followed Christ’s teachings as found in
this parable?
7. What would you say to someone who believes that looking at pornography is okay because he
or she is just looking, and not an action?
8. Someone tells you, “Catholics have it easy. All they have to do is go to Confession, and then
they can go out and commit the same sins again.” Explain the fallacy in this statement.
9. A Catholic says, “I just tell God my sins and he forgives me. I do not need to go to Confession.”
How would you respond?
10. List the sins that can be found in the following texts of St. Paul:
• Rom 1: 29– 31; 13: 13
• 1 Cor 5: 10– 11; 6: 9– 10
• 2 Cor 12: 20– 21
• Gal 5: 19– 21
• Eph 4: 31; 5: 3– 5
• Col 3: 5– 8
• 1 Tm 1: 9– 10; 6: 9– 11
• 2 Tm 3: 2– 5
• Ti 3: 3
11. Comment on the following words of Socrates:
• “But if it were necessary for me either to do or to suffer injustice, I’d elect to suffer injustice
rather than do it.” (Plato, Gorgias, 469 c)
• “Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to any one, whatever evil we may have
suffered from him.” (Plato, Crito, 49 c– d)
12. Comment on the excerpt from Pope John Paul II’s writing on the Sacrament of Reconciliation
contained in the reading in “Advanced Concepts.” Why does the Church reject the distinction
between mortal sin and grave sin? Why is it impossible for a person to commit a sinful action,
involving grave matter, without this action involving a concrete rebellion against God?
13. Resolve the following case: John and his friend Patrick are discussing the human sins of
passion, namely the sins of lust, anger, and gluttony. John holds that actions such as blasphemy
against God and grave social injustices are sins, but he denies that premarital sex is a sin. “How
can you call it a sin if a man and a woman by mutual consent decide to have sexual relations, when
children are starving in Africa and being murdered in wars all over the globe?” he asks. Patrick
argues that any evil consists in an offense against God, and since extramarital relations are serious
disorders of the human passions and contrary to the express purpose for which God created human
sexuality, they offend the dignity of the person, who is made in the image of God.
14. Explain why, according to the text, people like John tend to reduce sin to blasphemy and social
crimes. According to Scripture, why are the most serious sins those that offend human dignity?
What criteria can be given to determine both what is sinful and the gravity of the sin?

FROM THE CATECHISM

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by
his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God
would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we
shall fully know only in eternal life.
1490 The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and
abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion
touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God’s mercy.
1492 Repentance (also called contrition) must be inspired by motives that arise from faith. If
repentance arises from love of charity for God, it is called “perfect” contrition; if it is founded on
other motives, it is called “imperfect.”
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object
is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”51
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others
when we cooperate in them:
• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.
1873 The root of all sins lies in man’s heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined
principally by their objects.
1874 To choose deliberately — that is, both knowing it and willing it — something gravely
contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys
in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.
1875 Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist
in us.
2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and
away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.

Part II

Applications of the Moral Life