Near Ocassions of Sin are NOT Mortal

[Peace]

I have come across some Catholics who suggest that intentionally putting oneself in a near occasion of a mortal sin (without the intention to commit the mortal sin itself) constitutes a mortal sin.

An example of that might be intentionally sleeping over at your girlfriend's house with no intention to fornicate. Or walking into a candy store if you are a kleptomaniac, without the intention to steal anything.

I think that to suggest that such action would be a mortal sin is complete BS.  Bro-theology, if you will.

Is there anyone here who believes that it is mortal? If so, what is the evidence/logic/authority to support that belief?

Peace

[truthfinder]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

Check the link for a better description of "near" or "proximate" occasion of sin.  Basically, if putting yourself willingly into a situation in which most people would sin, or for which you know you would sin, is a near occasion of sin and is a sin in and of itself.  I think the gravity of that sin would be in proportion to which the gravity of the proximate sin. IE going to a strip club, or even forming the intention thereof, would be a near occasion, even if nothing "else" happened would be a mortal sin; hanging out with people willingly who you always gossip with or commit detraction etc, might be a venial sin (depending of course on the gravity of the gossip).  

Sleeping over at a gf's house, with no one else around (ie it's not her family's home) would probably be scandalous. 

[Peace]

7 hours ago, truthfinder said:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

Check the link for a better description of "near" or "proximate" occasion of sin.  Basically, if putting yourself willingly into a situation in which most people would sin, or for which you know you would sin, is a near occasion of sin and is a sin in and of itself.  I think the gravity of that sin would be in proportion to which the gravity of the proximate sin. IE going to a strip club, or even forming the intention thereof, would be a near occasion, even if nothing "else" happened would be a mortal sin; hanging out with people willingly who you always gossip with or commit detraction etc, might be a venial sin (depending of course on the gravity of the gossip).  

Thank you.

I tend to think that depending on the particular person and circumstances, there could be venial sin.

I tend to doubt that "putting yourself willingly into a situtation in which most people would sin" must constitute a sin. Christian men who spend time talking to prostitutes would seem to me an example of putting yourself in a situation where most men might sin, but is not a sin for the particular man involved:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/12/us/a-priest-pays-prostitutes-for-time-to-offer-them-an-escape.html

I also tend to doubt that there could be mortal sin in this situations. I have trouble identifying an act that constitutes a grave matter. What could it be, for example?

7 hours ago, truthfinder said:

Sleeping over at a gf's house, with no one else around (ie it's not her family's home) would probably be scandalous. 

Thank you. I agree that some of these situations could cause scandal. The question I wanted to focus on here is whether (and to what extent) putting oneself in a near ocassion of sin constitues a sin in and of itself (apart from any scandal that it may cause).

[truthfinder]

Hi Peace,

see around page 125 (Question 207) in the baltimore Catechism vol. 4 (basically the teacher version). http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (of 4).pdf

It states that there is the obligation to avoid occasions of sin - thus it would be sinful to allow yourself into those unavoidable near occasions of sin.  This can be painful - it may mean that we have to separate ourselves from certain friends, places, pasttimes (possibly stopping using a computer if when using it you always fall into porn, tv as the same). 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, truthfinder said:

Hi Peace,

see around page 125 (Question 207) in the baltimore Catechism vol. 4 (basically the teacher version). http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (of 4).pdf

Thank you for the information.

 

[Seven77]

 Yeah, I would say that deliberately putting yourself into an occasion of sin is itself sinful.  But of course it is possible that some things are safely outside the boundaries of on occasion of sin. And what may be an occasion of sin for somebody may not be an occasion of sin for someone else.

[Socrates]

On 7/23/2016 at 10:13 PM, Peace said:

I have come across some Catholics who suggest that intentionally putting oneself in a near occasion of a mortal sin (without the intention to commit the mortal sin itself) constitutes a mortal sin.

An example of that might be intentionally sleeping over at your girlfriend's house with no intention to fornicate. Or walking into a candy store if you are a kleptomaniac, without the intention to steal anything.

I think that to suggest that such action would be a mortal sin is complete BS.  Bro-theology, if you will.

Is there anyone here who believes that it is mortal? If so, what is the evidence/logic/authority to support that belief?

Peace

It's not BS; it's basic Catholic moral teaching.

In the Act of Contrition I was taught, we vow to "sin no more and avoid the near occasions of sin."  This promise would make no sense if there was nothing wrong with needlessly placing yourself in a situation that was a near occasion of sin.

All the good priests I've known have warned that if we're doing nothing to avoid things or situations that lead to sin, it shows we're not really serious about our purpose of amendment.

The seriousness of this is affected by how proximate (near) the occasion of sin is, and whether there is actually a good legitimate reason to be in the occasion of sin.  (For instance, it might make a difference whether you're going to a strip club because "they've got good drinks" or whatever, or if your duties as a cop require you to be there at a particular time. - maybe a bad example, but you get the idea.)

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

It's not BS; it's basic Catholic moral teaching.

In the Act of Contrition I was taught, we vow to "sin no more and avoid the near occasions of sin."  This promise would make no sense if there was nothing wrong with needlessly placing yourself in a situation that was a near occasion of sin.

I did not say that there was nothing wrong with putting yourself in a situation that is a near occassion of sin. In this very same thread I wrote that doing so could be venial sin, depending on the circumstances.

I said that to intentionally put oneself in a situation that is a near occassion of sin does not constitute a "MORTAL" sin.  For this very same reason I titled this thread "Near Ocassions of Sin are NOT Mortal".

If you have anythig to add on that topic I would be glad to hear it. Thank you.

[LittleWaySoul]

I think that depending on a couple of factors, putting yourself in a near occasion of sin COULD be mortally sinful. These factors are as follows:

(A) How grave the sin is that you'd be tempted to do

(B) How justified and/or culpable you are in putting yourself in such a situation (in other words, the reason you're in this situation)

(C) How confident you are that you can avoid sin in spite of your temptation

(D) Knowledge of self-- do you know yourself clearly and well enough to know that a given situation is a near occasion of sin in the first place? 

I would suggest that these factors could make the difference between mortal and venial sinfulness in these cases. Remember: the sinfulness of putting yourself in such situations must be judged not by whether or not you actually do sin, but on the action itself of putting yourself in such a place. Placing yourself in a near occasion of sinfulness is a distinct action from the sin itself and should be judged accordingly. 

[Socrates]

On 7/25/2016 at 6:46 PM, Peace said:

I did not say that there was nothing wrong with putting yourself in a situation that is a near occassion of sin. In this very same thread I wrote that doing so could be venial sin, depending on the circumstances.

I said that to intentionally put oneself in a situation that is a near occassion of sin does not constitute a "MORTAL" sin.  For this very same reason I titled this thread "Near Ocassions of Sin are NOT Mortal".

If you have anythig to add on that topic I would be glad to hear it. Thank you.

Based on what I was taught, putting yourself in an occasion of sin can be mortal if a) the sin you're being tempted to is mortal, b) it's a near (rather than remote) occasion of sin (you're likely to fall into sin), and c) there's no good, legitimate reason to put yourself in that situation.

(looks like LittleWaySoul gave basically the same answer)

[LittleWaySoul]

1 minute ago, Socrates said:

Based on what I was taught, putting yourself in an occasion of sin can be mortal if a) the sin you're being tempted to is mortal, b) it's a near (rather than remote) occasion of sin (you're likely to fall into sin), and c) there's no good, legitimate reason to put yourself in that situation.

(looks like LittleWaySoul gave basically the same answer)

Bravo to you for being much more precise about it, but yep, pretty much my thoughts on the matter. 

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Socrates said:

Based on what I was taught, putting yourself in an occasion of sin can be mortal if a) the sin you're being tempted to is mortal, b) it's a near (rather than remote) occasion of sin (you're likely to fall into sin), and c) there's no good, legitimate reason to put yourself in that situation.

(looks like LittleWaySoul gave basically the same answer)

Thanks. But I have yet to see any official Church document that suggests that is true. I think it is Catholic bro-theology.

[KnightofChrist]

"Hence if the circumstances suggest it, it may be necessary to remind them of that well-known precept of the natural and divine law, which commands us to avoid not only sins but the next occasion of sin as well." Pope Gregory XVI, Summo iugiter studio 

We are commanded by both divine and natural law to avoid near/next occasions of sin. If we deliberately put ourselves into near occasions of sin (that can be avoided) and know we are deliberately breaking divine and natural law that forbids it. That's mortal sin.

[LittleWaySoul]

8 hours ago, Peace said:

Thanks. But I have yet to see any official Church document that suggests that is true. I think it is Catholic bro-theology.

Not every solid theological teaching is backed by an official Church document. Very often questions like these are figured out using already-present principles of theology (though KoC offered a good quote too). For example, the Church accepts many of Aquinas's teachings to be true without releasing an official document on them. And yet Aquinas had relatively little actual authority in the Church when he was alive (as far as I know, anyway). 

Socrates and I seem to both be applying basic Christian moral principles that are already used in discussing sin to the question of near occasions of sin. I think that's a fair assessment to make, especially as, like I said, I firmly believe that the sinfulness of putting yourself in a near occasion of sin cannot be judged in retrospect (that is, based on whether one actually caves to temptation). It needs to be judged as its own action because it is one.

What is "Catholic bro-theology"? I have degrees in philosophy and theology but I've never heard it mentioned either officially or colloquially. 

[Peace]

12 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

If we deliberately put ourselves into near occasions of sin (that can be avoided) and know we are deliberately breaking divine and natural law that forbids it. That's mortal sin.

That reasoning seems rather circular to me.

[KnightofChrist]

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

That reasoning seems rather circular to me.

I'm sitting here eating my taco (so tasty) lunch trying to understand, how so? If we deliberately break divine and natural law when we could have avoided doing so, how is circular to say that is mortal sin?

[Peace]

4 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Not every solid theological teaching is backed by an official Church document. Very often questions like these are figured out using already-present principles of theology (though KoC offered a good quote too). For example, the Church accepts many of Aquinas's teachings to be true without releasing an official document on them. And yet Aquinas had relatively little actual authority in the Church when he was alive (as far as I know, anyway). 

Socrates and I seem to both be applying basic Christian moral principles that are already used in discussing sin to the question of near occasions of sin. I think that's a fair assessment to make, especially as, like I said, I firmly believe that the sinfulness of putting yourself in a near occasion of sin cannot be judged in retrospect (that is, based on whether one actually caves to temptation). It needs to be judged as its own action because it is one.

What is "Catholic bro-theology"? I have degrees in philosophy and theology but I've never heard it mentioned either officially or colloquially. 

Sure, I might agree that not everything requires an official Church document. You could convince me by logic or reasoning. But nobody has done that. Mortal sin requires an action that constitutes a grave matter (idolatry, fornication, rape, theft, murder, abortion, etc.). I don't think that going over to your girlfriend's apartment for Spaghetti is up there with rape in terms of gravity. Who would argue that? I go over to my girlfriend's house for Spaghetti, we have a nice dinner. I go home. I am roasting in hell with rapists and murderers for all time for that? It seems to defy basic common sense and to make the distinction between mortal and venial sin totally irrelevant. 

One would also think that in the 2000 year history of the Church, who has been tasked with protecting our souls, there would be at least one document somewhere that clearly indicates that it would (somehow) be a mortal sin. That would endanger millions of souls but they decided to leave it out of the Catechism? Why Just for kicks? 

LOL. Bro-theology is a term invented by yours truly. It refers generally to the random theological speculations of people like myself. It is a play on the term "Bro-science". Google it!

4 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm sitting here eating my taco (so tasty) (so tasty) lunch trying to understand, how so? If we deliberately break divine and natural law when we could have avoided doing so, how is circular to say that is mortal sin?

Venial sins also violate the divine law.

[KnightofChrist]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

Venial sins also violate the divine law.

That doesn't explain why you believe it is circular.

Venial sins do not necessarily need to be confessed to a priest and one can still receive absolution and be saved. However Pope Blessed Innocent XI condemned the notion that deliberately putting oneself in near occasion of sin does not need to be confessed and one could still receive absolution.

If intentionally putting oneself into a near occasion of sin must be confessed and must afterward be shunned in order to receive absolution, it seems clear that deliberately putting oneself into near occasion of sin and not shunning it is a mortal sin. It has the same effect as unrepentant mortal sin anyway, damnation, that is after all the effect of sinners not receiving absolution.

Quote

“He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.”

“The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.”

“It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.”

Pope Innocent XI, Condemned Statements in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (source)

 

[Peace]

29 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

That doesn't explain why you believe it is circular.

Perhaps circular was not the best way to describe my objection.

Your argument (at least as I understood it) was that:

An intentional violation of the divine law = mortal sin

It seemed to me that you assumed what it was that you in fact needed to prove.

I wrote that venial sins are also violations of the divine law to indicate that the assumption was not correct.

Quote

Venial sins do not necessarily need to be confessed to a priest and one can still receive absolution and be saved. However Pope Blessed Innocent XI condemned the notion that deliberately putting oneself in near occasion of sin does not need to be confessed and one could still receive absolution.

Hmm. Interesting. If putting oneself into a near occasion of sin is something that must be confessed to a priest in order to be forgiven, I think that would prove your assertion. But where exactly does Pope Blessed Innocent XI say that? I do not see such a statement in anything that you posted below.
 

Quote

 

“He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.”

The point here is that a person who persists in the the proximate occasion can be absolved in the confessional, even if he has the ability to avoid the proximate cause but refuses to do so.

But it does not state that such persistence is a mortal sin or cannot be forgiven outside of confession. It does not state that such sins must be absolved in the confessional.

The issue that is being discussed here is a bit different I think. The question relates to whether a sin can be forgiven if a person persists in it. It does not seem to relate to the gravity of the sin per se.

Quote

“The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.”

This states that the proximate occasion need not be avoided (shunned) if there is some good purpose for it (for example, going to a place where many prostitutes are, in order to evangelize to them or help them find a new life).

Quote

“It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.”

Basically the same as above - we can pursue the proximate occasion if it causes some good for ourselves or someone else.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

38 minutes ago, Peace said:

Perhaps circular was not the best way to describe my objection.

Your argument (at least as I understood it) was that:

An intentional violation of the divine law = mortal sin

It seemed to me that you assumed what it was that you in fact needed to prove.

I wrote that venial sins are also violations of the divine law to indicate that the assumption was not correct.

I have been speaking in the context of the two examples of occasions of sins you gave in the op. The occasion of sin to fornication or theft, both mortal sins not venial. Still, if we cannot receive absolution from a priest if we put ourselves in a near occasion of sin and do not shun it, that still has the same effect of an unrepented moral sin. 

Quote

Hmm. Interesting. If putting oneself into a near occasion of sin is something that must be confessed to a priest in order to be forgiven, I think that would prove your assertion. But where exactly does Pope Blessed Innocent XI say that? I do not see such a statement in anything that you posted below.
 

By his mention of absolution, absolution is part of confession, can't have absolution without confession. In order to receive absolution we must confess our sins and vow to sin no more or avoid/shun sin. If we don't confess our sins we don't receive absolution. Pope Blessed Innocent XI is making it clear that unless we confess intentionally putting ourselves into a near occasion of sin and promise to after shun doing so we cannot receive absolution, which again only comes after confession.

Quote

The point here is that a person who persists in the the proximate occasion can be absolved in the confessional, even if he has the ability to avoid the proximate cause but refuses to do so.

But it does not state that such persistence is a mortal sin or cannot be forgiven outside of confession. It does not state that such sins must be absolved in the confessional.

This states that the proximate occasion need not be avoided (shunned) if there is some good purpose for it (for example, going to a place where many prostitutes are, in order to evangelize to them or help them find a new life).

Basically the same as above - we can pursue the proximate occasion if it causes some good for ourselves or someone else.

It can be confusing, but Pope Blessed Innocent XI is actually condemning these notions as errors. In the degree he is listing various errors that are condemned. Basically he means the opposite is in fact true.

For example what he really means is

'We condemn the erroneous belief that a man can be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.'

'We condemn the erroneous belief that the proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.'

'We condemn the erroneous belief that it is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.'

Edited July 28, 2016 by KnightofChrist