Near Ocassions of Sin are NOT Mortal

[dairygirl4u2c]

kinda a tangent. but i always thought it might be admirable, put hair on your chest, to put yourself in the near occassion of sin if you knew you could resist, just to make you tougher and show that you can resist. not sure i buy the idea, but i entertain the idea a lot.

[LittleWaySoul]

On 7/28/2016 at 0:53 PM, Peace said:

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. 

The qualifications for near occasion of sin's mortal/venial nature outlined in mine and @Socrates' previous posts don't say that it is always a mortal sin. Rather, they give guidelines to discover whether it might be or not. These aren't arguments saying that putting yourself in a near occasion of sin is always mortal. Rather, they're attempts to help someone figure out whether their action is mortal or not.

Both Socrates and I used the qualifications for mortal sin itself (grave matter, full knowledge, full consent) and applied it to putting yourself in a near occasion of sin. Therefore, if the near occasion of sin is: (A) a temptation to a grave sin, (B) with full knowledge that you have little power to avoid said sin, and (C) you fully choose to put yourself there, then there is a possibility that such a situation puts one in mortal sin. However, it could also be venial depending on whether it conforms to the qualifications of mortal sin or not. 

Without knowing yours or your girlfriend's hearts, I'd wager a guess that going to her apartment for spaghetti may not even be venial, but if it's sinful at all, it's very likely not mortal. Especially since I'm assuming that both of you have a reasonable amount of self-control and have successfully had dinner alone without having it develop into something more. Seems innocent enough to me.

But I still maintain that there could be certain situations where putting oneself in a near occasion of sin *could* be mortal. For example, if someone had a crazy urge to brutally murder someone (hey, it's happened before), and they knew they couldn't resist doing it if they waited in a dark alley for someone to come along, and they knew it was a mortal sin to murder someone, putting themselves in that dark alley would be a mortally sinful near occasion of sin, regardless of whether anyone actually came down the alley or whether they ended up killing them.

I sincerely doubt that you're in mortal sin for going over to your girlfriend's apartment for spaghetti. But I don't want to close the door on the possibility of other near occasions of sin done in other situations which could be mortally sinful. I think that situations like that do exist, regardless of whether either of us has ever encountered them.

Quote

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? 

I think the Church assumes that people will apply the qualifications for mortal sin to every action they make. That includes the action of placing oneself in a near occasion of sin. The Church isn't going to outline every individual minute instance where an action could be mortally sinful-- that's impossible. And as in most actions, putting yourself in a near occasion of sin could go either way. There is no absolute statement of either, "NEAR OCCASIONS OF SIN ARE ALWAYS MORTALLY SINFUL," or "NEAR OCCASIONS OF SIN ARE ALWAYS VENIALLY SINFUL," or "NEAR OCCASIONS OF SIN ARE NEVER IN THEMSELVES SINFUL," because it could be any of the three, depending on context.

Quote

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!

Ahh. Makes sense! Thanks for explaining, lol  

[Jack4]

1)Meaningful words from the CA article linked: Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it). 

2)Note: Venial sin is NOT "okay-to-commit" sin. We should die rather than do a venial sin.