02Oct Sin, Mortal & Otherwise

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/sins-mortal-otherwise

As an earnest young Catholic boy thinking seriously about the priesthood, I was surprised to find myself wishing I were Protestant. I told no one of my secret dallying with apostasy, which, I feared, might have been a mortal sin. My adolescent Catholic world of the 1950s was simple: avoid committing a mortal sin at all costs. And my world was loaded with land mines that my high-school religion teachers assured me were mortal sins. Step on one and be instantly separated from the state of grace and plunged into the horror of being separated from God. And worse, should I die without confessing a mortal sin to a priest, I would be condemned to hell for eternity.

While I was seriously thinking about the priesthood, I was at the same time seriously thinking about girls. But just thinking about girls could be trouble. For that could lead to impure thoughts. And these desires, if for an instant deliberate and with full consent of my will, would make me guilty of mortal sin. To my consternation, I learned that everything sexual outside of marriage—not only actions, but even thoughts and desires—was mortally sinful. Moreover, even “going steady,” that is, exclusive dating, was itself mortally sinful because it was a near occasion of mortal sin. Talk about adolescent angst!

Steal a candy bar from the neighborhood drugstore and you commit a venial sin. Steal a person’s life savings and you commit a mortal sin. I got that. It made sense. In most areas of the moral code, offenses were judged by the church as venial or mortal depending on whether they constituted “grave matter.” In criminal terms, when it came to sex, there were no misdemeanors, only felonies.

That approach to sexual morality made me look with envy on what I imagined to be a more benign Protestant approach. To this day, official Catholic teaching holds there is no “poverty of matter” when it comes to deliberate sexual behavior undertaken with full consent of the will. When it comes to sex outside of marriage—and often within marriage—we’re talking mortal sin.

My memories of moral adolescent turmoil were awakened reading Peter Steinfels’s important Commonweal essay, “Contraception & Honesty: A Proposal for the Next Synod.” From an existential perspective, the artificial birth-control controversy following Pope Paul’s Humanae vitae can be linked directly to the church’s teaching that the issue is a grave matter—practicing artificial birth control is a mortal sin. As a young priest in the late 1960s and early ’70s, I saw firsthand the moral anguish of married couples wrestling with this teaching. I believe their acute pain was intimately tied to their fear of committing mortal sin. We might have had a very different moral discussion following the birth-control encyclical if the church had not insisted that all forms of artificial birth control were intrinsically evil and therefore mortal sins. Labeling human moral acts and omissions that miss the mark as mortal sin always ups the ante—and threatens the credibility of the church’s teaching authority itself.

The church’s readiness to call certain behaviors or admissions mortal sins grew out of a pastoral concern to motivate the faithful to do what was thought essential or at least important for the salvation of their souls. I’m old enough to remember when it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. Fasting and abstinence had long been held to be important aids to maintaining the discipline required for living in what was called a state of grace. So, the faithful were instructed, under pain of mortal sin, to abstain from meat on Friday, the day of Our Lord’s passion and death. Shortly after the Second Vatican Council, eating meat on Fridays was no longer considered a mortal sin, although fasting and abstinence remained honored practices.

Older priests like myself remember when our obligation to pray the Divine Office, the breviary, was an obligation carried out “under pain of mortal sin.” So came the familiar anecdotes of priests praying their breviary by the light of their car’s headlights as midnight approached. Priests do indeed have an obligation to be men of prayer, and the psalms and prayers of the breviary can hold us secure in the grace that comes over believers who live in the presence of God. The “under pain of mortal sin” motivator no longer works for most priests, and it clearly doesn’t work for most Catholics.

AT THE HEART of Catholic faith, of course, is the Eucharist. Celebrating Mass regularly remains the primary measure of whether or not one is a practicing Catholic. Vatican II made it clear, however, that Mass attendance is much more than a measure of one’s Catholicity. Eucharist is at the very center of our personal and communal lives as God’s holy people. This theological truth, known long before the council, led to the teaching that celebrating Mass on Sunday was so essential to life in Christ that to miss Mass deliberately was to commit a mortal sin. It did not matter whether a Catholic attended Mass on most Sundays; missing Mass on even one Sunday was a mortal sin.

I understand the church’s teaching that Catholics have a moral obligation to celebrate Mass regularly, even weekly. But I don’t understand why the obligation to attend Mass on any given Sunday is burdened with the penalty of mortal sin. A friend of mine rises early every morning for Mass at a Carmelite monastery. He’s at Mass every day of the week—except Sunday. Why my friend doesn’t celebrate Mass on Sunday isn’t clear to me, but I don’t believe for a minute that he commits a mortal sin by missing Mass on the Lord’s Day. But the law remains the law. The 1983 Code of Canon Law upholds the faithful’s obligation to celebrate Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation but doesn’t apply the “under pain of mortal sin” tag. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, declares that “those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin” (2181). It’s time to review the practice of attaching grave sin to missing Mass.

Many Catholics, perhaps most, simply do not take seriously the church’s teaching that some of its rules and obligations are binding under pain of mortal sin. Researchers report that in Europe and North America, weekly Mass attendance is well under 30 percent. Survey after survey indicates that the vast majority of Catholic married couples aren’t following the church’s prohibition against artificial birth control. Church authorities can no longer expect the penalty of mortal sin to compel the faithful to comply with official church teaching. Yet, for some bishops and Catholic leaders, mortal sin remains the trump card they’re ready to play when laying down the law of the church.

Catholic moral tradition, especially in the arena of sexuality, remains married to a calculus of sin. Confessors, at least from the time of the Council of Trent, were trained to distinguish between venial matter and grave matter in hearing confessions. That led in turn to an emphasis on the “act committed” rather than on the penitent’s encounter with the healing mercy of Jesus Christ and his or her overall moral orientation. Pope Francis, in harmony with the work of contemporary theologians like Bernard Häring, Charles Curran, Margaret Farley and others, is showing us how to move beyond the narrow legalisms of act-centered morality.

But it seems that many Catholics have already managed to climb out of the dark hole of an act-centered, sin-focused morality all by themselves. They have not lost a healthy sense of sin, but they don’t think a second glance at their neighbor’s spouse or missing Mass on Sunday separates them from God’s grace. Nor do they believe that doing what is necessary to determine the size of their family is always mortally sinful.

Almost a half-century ago, Andrew Greeley, the Chicago priest-sociologist and storyteller, tried to tell us that Humane vitae’s teaching against artificial birth control leveled a near fatal blow to the church’s credibility, especially when it comes to its teaching on human sexual behavior. He was right then, and Peter Steinfels is right now to remind us that, as the next Synod unfolds, the church’s “under pain of mortal sin” teaching on artificial contraception remains the “elephant in the room.”

Rev. Donald Cozzens teaches religious studies at John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. 

5 Responses

  1. Kevin Walters

    The greatest gift we have received is the gift of life, given by God through the action of our parents, refusing to fully partake in His creation by deliberately denying another the opportunity of life, is sinful and this sin is known innately by all of mankind.

    The Church’s teachings on contraception are as true and infallible today as they have historically been.
    How can the Church restore the full value of her teachings which have been rejected by so many over the last five decades through human weakness? Without driving out more of those baptized Christians who have not fully committed to Jesus Christ and who are still in need of nurturing in order to lead them into the full realization of the faith. For some confession is an option before taking communion but often it is not practical to do so, for many it would be downright dishonest, without the true intention to change, it would only compound their sin in taking the Bread of Life, acting out an external gesture of religiosity in conveying an image of worldly respectability.
    The Church cannot sanction sin but in can sanction mercy.
    Let those couples who practice contraception out of human frailty be permitted each time before approaching the Bread of Life, to look upon(Venerate) the true image of Divine Mercy, a broken image, a reflection of themselves before God in the Eucharist, bringing them face to face with their own limitations (sin/ frailty) and in doing so see their need of the Lord and dependence on His mercy and then saying these words from the heart, before the presence of God in the Eucharist, which have been given by God Himself to His Holy Church on earth.
    “Jesus, I Trust in Thee”
    And now dwelling in His Mercy, permit them to partake of the Bread of Life and in their humility, grow spiritually
    Please consider reading my posts in relation Divine Mercy & Humanae Vitae
    on the link below. 30th June 2015

    http://www.acireland.ie/aci-discusses-marriage-and-the-family-with-archbishop-diarmuid-martin/#comment-738
    kevin your brother
    In Christ

  2. sara

    Perhaps it is different in Ireland but here in the UK I do not know anyone who accepted Humanae Vitae. In our parish if these people left we could all fit in a telephone box. As I have a hormone imbalance I have always been allowed to use the pill. Perhaps their souls have died any no-one noticed …who knows.

  3. Martin

    The Mass attendance requirement under pain of mortal sin, except for valid reasons according to the mind of the Church, is a good one, because, let’s face it, if it wasn’t for that, many of us would skip Mass and it could become a very bad habit. I know during my lax/dry/careless/lukewarm phases, that precept keeps me coming to Mass, and thereby in close proximity to the Lord even if I can’t receive Holy Communion, and also the opportunity to go to Confession.

  4. Paddy Ferry

    How well many of us can relate to what Fr. Cozzens describes !! How innocent were we — so naïve, infact, that it is now embarrassing to recall. Part of me harbours a sense of sadness that my children do not have the same attachment to the “church” that I had as a young person, though they are still believers. However, another part of me is pleased and relieved that they are not troubled by the same nonsense that I had swirling around my cranium when I was their age.

    On the issue of birth control/ family planning/contraception/ Humanae Vitae, which must be one of the most researched and surveyed topics in the history of the Catholic Church, the most recent piece of research that I have come across –probably a couple of years ago now– found that 92% of married practising Catholic couples in America and Europe did not accept the core teaching of Humanae Vitae. I wonder does that constitute a valid expression of the sensus fidelium.

  5. Prodigal Son

    re # 4 above

    There are at least two versions of “sensus fidelium.” Which one is being used here?

    8% of 70,million Catholics 5,600,000. A lot of people observing the teaching. other research points out that among these 5,600,000, abortion is nil, and divorce statistically insignificant.


Scroll Up